JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal under section 224 of the RT Act against the judgment and decree of RAA, Jodhpur dated 19-9-1980 by which the dismissal of the suit by Assistant Collector, Jalore on 18-2-1986 has been set aside and the suit has been decreed. 2. The disputed land is khasra No. 530 measuring 486 big has in which Bhik Kanwar widow of Johar Singh had 1/4 share. Thus her share comes to 121 big has 10 biswas and she was admittedly the khatedar of this land. After the death of Bhik Kanwar the land was mutated in the name of her son Ladu Singh. On 21-12-1970 the SDO, Jalore decided the ceiling case of Ladu Singh and this 121 bighas 10 biswas of land was taken over by the State of Rajasthan and was recorded as sawai chak. 3. Under these circumstances Gulab Singh filed a suit against the Government of Rajasthan and Ladu Singh was also impleaded as a defendant. Gulab Singh alleged that Bhik Kanwar had executed a Will in his favour on 17-3-1963 and, therefore, the land never devolved on her son Ladu Singh and the State had no right to take over the land in the ceiling proceedings against Ladu Singh or his deceased father Johar Singh. 4. Ladu Singh admitted the plaint allegation but the suit was contested by the Government of' Rajasthan and on the basis of the pleadings the trial court framed three issues. After recording the evidence the trial court pointed out a number of suspicious circumstances in the Will relied upon by Gulab Singh and dismissed the suit. The learned RAA however, reversed this finding and decreed the suit against the State. 5. It may be mentioned at the outset that the appeal filed by the State was accompanied by an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act which has been allowed by a Division Bench on 25-8-1987. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 7. The main question which arises for consideration is whether the Will dated 17-3-1963 relied upon by Gulab Singh is a genuine document. The learned Assistant Collector has pointed out that no mutation was attested in favour of Gulab Singh even after the expiry of 8 years after the death of Bhik Kanwar. 7. The main question which arises for consideration is whether the Will dated 17-3-1963 relied upon by Gulab Singh is a genuine document. The learned Assistant Collector has pointed out that no mutation was attested in favour of Gulab Singh even after the expiry of 8 years after the death of Bhik Kanwar. That the plaintiff had failed to establish that he was in possession from 1963 till the institution of the suit. That Gulab Singh has pleaded in the plaint that Bhik Kanwar died within 20 days of the execution of Till but in his statement he has said that she died after six or seven months. That Gulab Singh claims that he paid land revenue to Ladu Singh but he was not sure about the amount by him. Similar other suspicious circumstances have been pointed out which need not be repeated. 8. In the court of RAA, Gulab Singh introduced one document under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC so as to strengthen his case. This application was filed on 5-12-1978 but no specific order has been passed on the same. The defendant State of Rajasthan did not get any opportunity to rebut the evidence introduced Gulab Singh before the first appellate court. The document introduced at the late stage is a copy of an application said to have been filed by Gulab Singh on 28-6-1963 before Tehsildar Aahore. In this application Gulab Singh stated that Bhik Kanwar has executed a Will on 17-3-1963 and she has expired and therefore the Patwari should be ordered to attest the mutation in his favour. He has approached the Patwari several times but he insisted on and order of Tehsildar and therefore the applicant on is being filed. The copy hears an order purporting to be that of the Tehsildar Aahore. The copy of the order has been issued by the Patwari on 20-12-1977 but the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was filed on 5-12-1978. If this application dated 28-6-1963 is genuine, it goes a long way in proving the genuineness of the Will dated 17-3-1963 because in that case it can be claimed that the Will was set up as early as 28-6-1963 But if the copy admitted in evidence on 5-12-1978 is found to be forged the whole case set up by the plaintiff will be demolished. In our opinion there are suspicious circumstances and the case should be remanded for an enquiry into the matter by the RAA. The remand will also enable the State to produce evidence in rebuttal if it so likes. 9. The learned RAA is expected to call the original order from the Patwari who has issued the copy on 20-12-1977. An office copy must have been retained in Tehsildar Aahore and the same should also be called. The then Tehsildar and the Patwari of the circle in December, 1977 should also be called and their statements should be recorded. 10. In view of the above discussion the judgment and decree of RAA, Jodhpur dated 19-9-1980 is set aside and the case is remanded to the learned RAA with the direction that the case will be taken on its original number and after making the enquiry in accordance with the directions given above the appeal shall be decided again. The parties are directed to appear before the RAA, Jodhpur on 1-3-1988.order Accordingly. *******