JUDGMENT 1. - The Additional District Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur, has made this reference with a recommendation that the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hindaun, dated 6th September, 1971, may be set aside and the possession of Gopi, petitioner, party No. 1, may be declared over the land in dispute comprising Khasra No. 1129, measuring 15 Bighas and 3 Biswas, situated in village Khandhar, District Sawai Madhopur. 2. The relevant facts giving rise to this reference may be shortly stated as follows. 3. On the basis of a report made by the Station House Officer, Police Station, Khandhar, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur, was satisfied that a dispute likely to cause breach existed concerning a land comprising Khasra No. 1129 measuring 7 Bighas and 111/2 Biswas situated in village Khandhar between Gopi and Man Mohan, hereinafter referred to as parties Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur, therefore, made an order in writing stating the grounds of his being so satisfied and requiring the parties concerned in such dispute to attend his court and to put in their written statements of their respective claims in regard to the fact of the actual possession of the subject of dispute and further requiring them to put in such documents or to adduce by putting in affidavits the evidence of such persons as they relied upon in support of their claims. 4. In pursuance of the notices issued to the parties concerned, Gopi party No. 1 appeared before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate and filed his written statement along with copies of Khasra Girdawari and other documents. His claim was that he personally cultivated the whole of the land in dispute and had been in continuous possession thereof upto the date of passing of the preliminary order. He further alleged what Moolia never cultivated the land under controversy and after his death his window left the village after her re-marriage. Party No. 2, on the other hand, put forward its claim over the land in dispute on the basis of a sale-deed executed in his favour by Moolia's widow Mst. Rambhoo. According to him, this land belonged to the Khatedari of Moolia, who used to cultivate it during his life time. After Mooli's death Mst. Party No. 2, on the other hand, put forward its claim over the land in dispute on the basis of a sale-deed executed in his favour by Moolia's widow Mst. Rambhoo. According to him, this land belonged to the Khatedari of Moolia, who used to cultivate it during his life time. After Mooli's death Mst. Rambhoo had been in possession of this land and as she sold away this land to party No. 2 by way of a registered sale-deed, the latter stepped into her shoes and began to cultivate this land. Party No. 2 also adduced evidence of his witnesses by putting in their affidavits. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hindaun, to whom the case was transferred later on by an order of the District Magistrate, considered the entire evidence on the record and arrived at a conclusion that Man Mohan party No. 2 had been in possession of the land in dispute on the date of the preliminary order and that he would remain in possession thereof until evicted in due course by a competent court of law. 5. Aggrieved by this order, Gopi filed a revision-petition before the learned Additional District Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur, who, after going through the record, arrived at a different conclusion that party No. 1 Gopi had been in continuous possession of the land in dispute upto the date of passing of the preliminary order and that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hindaun, committed an error in not declaring his possession over this land. He was further of the view that the land in dispute was a part of Khasra No. 1129 measuring 15 Bighas and 3 Biswas, which was jointly held in possession by Man Mohan party No. 2 and Mst. Rambhoo, widow of Moolia from whom party No. 1 had purchased half of the land comprised of this Khasra. He, therefore, has made this reference. 6. I have gone through the record and heard arguments advanced by Mr. Brij Sunder Sharma appearing of party No. 2. No body has put in appearance for party No. 1. Rambhoo, widow of Moolia from whom party No. 1 had purchased half of the land comprised of this Khasra. He, therefore, has made this reference. 6. I have gone through the record and heard arguments advanced by Mr. Brij Sunder Sharma appearing of party No. 2. No body has put in appearance for party No. 1. At the outset I may observe that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate Hindaun, has relied upon the affidavits of parties their witnesses in arriving at a conclusion that Man Mohan party No.2 had been in possession of the land in dispute, and though the subject of dispute is a part of Khasra No. 1129 measuring 15 Bighas 3 Biswas, yet it is a separate well defined portion possessed by party No. 1 on the date of the preliminary order. From a look into these affidavits, it appears that they were not properly sworn in and verified by the deponent. In the affidavits of Gopi, Raghubar, Moolia, Bhonria, Ramnath, Mohan Lal Patel and Gangolia, the verification is highly defective. The deponents have stated that the contents of the affidavits are true to their knowledge and belief, without specifying therein which facts mentioned therein were within the personal knowledge of the deponents and which were based on their belief. The grounds for the belief also have not been disclosed. An affidavit cannot be said to be properly verified if it contains no specification as to which part is based on information and which on belief. Unless the affidavits are properly verified and are in conformity with the provisions of Order XIX Rule 3, C.P.C. they are liable for rejection by the court and no decision can legally be based on them. In a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as A.K.K. Nambiar v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 652 , their Lordship were pleased to make the following observations with regard to importance of verification of affidavits:- "The reasons for verification of affidavits are to enable the Court to find out which facts can be said to be proved on the affidavit evidence of rival parties. Allegations may be true to knowledge or allegations may be true to information received from persons or allegations may be based on records. The importance of verification is to test the genuineness and authenticity of allegations and also to make the deponent responsible for allegations. Allegations may be true to knowledge or allegations may be true to information received from persons or allegations may be based on records. The importance of verification is to test the genuineness and authenticity of allegations and also to make the deponent responsible for allegations. In essence verification is required to enable the Court to find out as to whether it will be safe to act on such affidavit evidence. In absence of proper verification, affidavits cannot be admitted in evidence." A Single Bench of this Court also has held in Pritam Singh v. Ranjit Singh, 1971 RLW 330 that if the affidavits are not properly verified and are not in conformity with Order XIX Rule 3, C.P.C. the Court may require a party to make good the defect even though no objection was taken by the other side, because such affidavits with a defective verification cannot be used in evidence. In the present case the verification of affidavits of witnesses is vague and does not contain specification as to which part thereof is based on information and which on belief, nor do they contain the grounds of belief and, therefore, they cannot furnish a sound basis forth decision of the case. Although no objection is raised regarding the form of these affidavits, yet this defect is a serious one adversely affecting the basis of such affidavits. To my mind it will not be proper to throw away the case merely because of this defect in the verification of the affidavits.Such a defect can be made good by the parties by putting in fresh duly verified affidavits in support of their respective claims. 7. Consequently, the reference is accepted,though on different ground and the impugned order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate Hindaun, is set aside and the case is sent back to him for fresh decision in the matter after giving the parties an opportunity to put in duly verified affidavits in support of their respective claims. *******