JUDGMENT 1. 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner seek to quash the judgment passed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority dated 27.9.79 (Ex. 2) and of the Board of Revenue dated 7.2.1987 (Ex. 3). 2. Brief facts which are necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this writ petition are that the non-petitioner No. 4 filed a suit on 10.1.68 under Section 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act for the recovery of possession of 5 Bighas and 19 Biswas of the lands situated in Khasra No. 561 measuring 23 Bighas and 5 bis was and 561/1 measuring 14 bit was, which was purchased by him from Gangaram brother of the petitioner for consideration by a registered sale deed dated 18.2.64. It is alleged that the suit land was in his possession from 19.2.64 to 313.64 but the defendant-petitioners forcefully dispossessed him on 31.3.64. The defendant in his written statement denied the fact dispossessing them forcefully and also alleged that they are of the land with Gangaram and partition did not take place and without filing suit for partition, suit under section 183 is not maintainable. The learned trial court framed as many as 10 issues and dismissed the suit on 26.9.77 holding that partition had not been proved and the plaintiff-non-petitioner is not entitled for decree under section 183. Against which the plaintiff Chhaganraj preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur, which was allowed holding that Gangaram was in separate possession of the land in dispute and has 1/4th share in the land, which was sold through a registered sale deed. The R.A.A. also held that the plaintiff-appellant acquired Khatedari rights and land has been mutated and recorded in the revenue record, and the same has not been challenged. Dissatisfied with the order of the learned R.A.A. the defendant-petitioner preferred second appeal. The Board of Revenue also while relying on the statements of the witnesses of the plaintiff-non-petitioners dismissed the second appeal. Hence, the defendants have come up before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Mr. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that without there being any legal or admissible evidence, the learned R.A.A. and the Board of Revenue have erred in arriving at a finding that partition had taken place between the parties. Hence, the defendants have come up before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Mr. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that without there being any legal or admissible evidence, the learned R.A.A. and the Board of Revenue have erred in arriving at a finding that partition had taken place between the parties. He has also submitted that in the absence of evidence regarding the rent payable by each cotenant after partition is contrary to the provisions of Section 53 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. He has relied on M/s. General Auto Agencies v. Hazari Singh, WLN (UC) 1981 27 ]. 4. Mr. Lodha, learned counsel for the non-petitioner has submitted that the findings arrived at by both the courts below cannot be interfered with under Article 226. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused, the impugned orders as well as the case law cited at Bar. 6. It is no doubt true that cotenant cannot be considered as trespassers and they have right in each inch of land until partition takes place according to law. 7. The sheet-anchor of the contention of Mr. Acharya is that the partition cannot be effected merely on the basis of mutual consent of the parties till it is proved as envisaged under section 53 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. It may be stated at the very outset that we are not impressed with the contention of counsel for the petitioner since the learned R.A.A. on the basis of the evidence adduced by the plaintiff-non-petitioner has arrived at a finding that partition had taken place by metes and bounds and the defendants with the connivance of his brother wants to dislodge a bonafide purchaser who purchased the land through registered sale deed dated 19.2.64, wherein the defendant-petitioners have categorically stated that they are selling their 1/4th share to the plaintiffs with consideration. The learned R.A.A. has also observed that the plaintiff-non-petitioner has acquired a Khatedari right and the land has been mutated in his favour. The defendant-petitioners have not raised the said ground before the Board of Revenue, though it has been claimed by Mr. The learned R.A.A. has also observed that the plaintiff-non-petitioner has acquired a Khatedari right and the land has been mutated in his favour. The defendant-petitioners have not raised the said ground before the Board of Revenue, though it has been claimed by Mr. Acharya that the same was argued but that does not find place in the order of the learned Board of Revenue, nor there is any whisper in this regard, in the order of the Board of Revenue which is under challenge. Under these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be permitted to agitate the same, at this stage before us. 8. It has been next contended that the R.A.A. has exceeded its jurisdiction in reversing the findings about partition and delivery of possession of disputed property recorded by S.D.M. He reasoned that an appellate court had no jurisdiction to reverse the findings of the trial court, if the trial court has made a well reasoned order, B.O.R. also apparently erred in affirming such order of R.A.A. 9. There cannot be any dispute that the conclusion and findings arrived at by the trial court shall not ordinarily be disturbed merely on the basis that appellate court comes to a different conclusion on the evidence appreciated by the trial court unless there is some basic error in such appreciation or the reasons for conclusions of trial judge are found to be wrong and the appellate court by giving cogent reasons discards the reasons given by the trial court, yet it does not affect the jurisdiction of the 1st appellate court to re appreciate and come to different conclusion than the trial court. As a matter of fact as a trial court on finding of fact it has a duty to examine the whole evidence and come to its own conclusion on all issues and cannot assume the findings to be binding. Even in the case of second appeal under section 100 C.P.C. the court does not examine the findings of fact as matter of course because of specific statutory provisions of C.P.C. limiting the grounds on which a second appeal can be entertained. But for any such statutory inhibition the jurisdiction of appellate court to arrive at its own finding on the basis of material on record, different from the one recorded by lower court remains unaffected. But for any such statutory inhibition the jurisdiction of appellate court to arrive at its own finding on the basis of material on record, different from the one recorded by lower court remains unaffected. A rule of prudence and judicial restraint in not to interfere with the findings of first court lightly cannot be raised to affect the jurisdiction of the appellate court to review findings of fact in the manner contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. In the case in hand, the R.A.A. being a court of appeal has jurisdiction and it has found the evidence of the witnesses of the plaintiff trustworthy while discarding the evidence of defendant and the view taken by the learned R.A.A. finds support by the learned Members of the Board of Revenue, therefore, when both the courts below have arrived at concurrent findings of fact, which cannot be interfered with in the writ jurisdiction as there is no error apparent on the face of record. This Court under Article 226 has only supervisory jurisdiction and not of a court of appeal and is not entitled to act as appellate court to go into the entire evidence. The cases cited by the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of present case. 11. Moreover on the perusal of order of B.O.R. we do not find that the finding recorded by R.A.A. was challenged on this ground which is now raised before us. The B.O.R. has merely affirmed the finding. This is yet another reason for which we are not inclined to interfere with the findings recorded by B.O.R. by issuing a writ of certiorari. 12. In the result, this writ petition has no force, so it is hereby dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed *******