JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal under section 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur on 3-9-1981 whereby he has accepted the appeal No. 241/79 of the State of Rajasthan and has set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court in suit No. 127/78 and has decreed the State's suit against present appellant and respondent No. 1 under section 175 Rajasthan Tenancy Act. 2. Brief facts are that the State of Rajasthan through Tehsildar, Badi Sadri filed an application in the trial court under section 175 Rajasthan Tenancy Act against the present appellant and respondent No. 1 for ejectment from the disputed land Khasra No. 26 area 3 Bighas, 14 Biswas situated in village Roop Pura, Tehsil Badi Sadri, with the averments that the father of respondent No. 1 has sold away the disputed land to the appellant for a consideration of Rs. 3,500/-. It is averred that father of respondent No. 1 is a member of Scheduled Tribe and the appellant is not a member of Scheduled Tribe or of Schedule Caste, so this transaction of sale is void and legal under section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Therefore, the State is entitled for ejectment. The application has been contested by present appellant. So this application has been converted in the suit. His case is that the disputed land was remortgaged with possession before S.Y. 2013 to the Karla' of his family and that this land was purchased by him in S.Y. 2018 orally, thus, the land is in his possession since long. Respondent No. 1 did not appear in the trial court despite service of notice, hence, ex-parte proceedings against him. The learned trial court framed necessary issues and after trial dismissed the suit after placing reliance on the Board Ruling 1977 RRD 621. 3. State of Rajasthan preferred an appeal before Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur who has accepted the appeal by the impugned judgment observing that 1977 RRD 621 on which the reliance was placed by the trial court has not been held a good law in 1980 RRD 744. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur this second appeal has been preferred by Khuman (transferee). 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Dy. Government Advocate. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur this second appeal has been preferred by Khuman (transferee). 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Dy. Government Advocate. Respondent No. 1 has not appeared despite service of notice, hence, ex-parte proceedings against him. We have perused the record also. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that there is no proof on record that the disputed land has been sold away by the father of respondent No. 1 to the appellant. 6. We have considered this argument but find it devoid of any force. In the trial court a certified true copy of the sale deed has been produced and it goes to show that the disputed land has been sold by Chena father of respondent No. 1 to the appellant and the sale deed has been duly registered. There is no dispute over the fact that Chena being Meena by caste belongs to Scheduled Tribe and the appellant is not a member of Scheduled Tribe or a Schedule Caste. Therefore, this sale is void and it contravenes the provisions of section 42 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The ruling 1977 RRD 621 which has been relied upon by the learned trial court is no longer a good law in view of 1980 RRD 744. 7. We, therefore, uphold the judgment and decree of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur, and dismiss the appeal.Pronounced.Appeal Dismissed *******