JUDGMENT 1. - Shera Ram filed a suit for permanent injunction in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ratangarh. Alongwith the suit, an application under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act (for short, 'the Act') was, also, moved in which a prayer was made that the defendant (petitioner) may be restrained to interfere in his possession over the land in question. Shera Ram, also, filed another suit under Section 53 of the Act. In that suit, also, an application was moved under Section 212 of the Act and it was prayed that the defendant may be restrained to interfere in his possession over the land in question. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Ratangarh, after hearing both the parties, dismissed both the applications filed by Shera Ram under Section 212 of the Act. Shera Ram preferred two appeals against the order passed in both these applications under Section 212 of the Act by which the learned Sub-Divisional Officer dismissed the same. The Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner, by its order dated 5.2.1986, allowed both the appeals filed by Shera Ram and restrained petitioner Bhoma Ram to interfere in the possession of plaintiff Shera Ram. Dissatisfied with the order dated 5.2.1986, passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner, allowing the applications filed by Shera Ram, Bhoma Ram preferred two revision petitions before the Board of Revenue. The learned Member of the Board of Revenue, by the judgment dated 13.1.1994, dismissed the revision petitions filed by Bhoma Ram. Bhoma Ram thereafter filed two review petitions before the Board of Revenue, which were dismissed by the learned Member of the Board of Revenue vide order dated 9.2.95 and 30.9.94. It is against the orders dated 09.2.95 and 30.9.94, passed by the learned Member of the Board of Revenue dismissing the revision petitions as well as the review petitions that petitioner Bhoma Ram has preferred these two writ petitions. As both these writ petitions raise a common question of law and facts, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. As both these writ petitions raise a common question of law and facts, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in possession over the land in question, which fact stands proved from the Jamabandi of the relevant years and, therefore, the learned Revenue Appellate Authority as well as the Board of Revenue were not justified in passing the orders restraining the petitioner to interfere in the possession of plaintiff-respondent No. 2 Shera Ram. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the plaintiff-respondent No. 2 is in possession over the land in question and both the Courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that prima facie case and balance of convenience are in favour of the plaintiff and he will suffer irreparable loss if the respondent is not restrained from interfering in the plaintiff's possession and rightly granted injunction in favour of the plaintiff. The findings arrived-at by the Court below are purely findings of facts, no interference is, therefore, called for and the writ petitions, filed by petitioner Bhoma Ram, deserve to be dismissed. 3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 4. The Revenue Appellate Authority as well as the learned Member of the Board of Revenue gave the specific findings that the plaintiff-respondent No. 2 Shera Ram is in possession over the land in question. Both the Courts below, also, came to the conclusion that the prima facie.case and the balance of convenience are in favour of the plaintiff and both the Courts below were, also, of the opinion that the irreparable injury will be caused to the plaintiff if no injunction is granted in his favour. After considering these three aspects of the case, the Revenue Appellate Authority as well as the learned Member of the Board of Revenue thought it proper to grant injunction in favour of the plaintiff-respondent No. 2. These are the findings of facts arrived at by the Court below after proper appreciation of the evidence. There is no.error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment/orders passed by the Courts below. These are the findings of facts arrived at by the Court below after proper appreciation of the evidence. There is no.error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment/orders passed by the Courts below. The findings arrived-at by the Revenue Appellate Authority as well as the Board of Revenue are based on proper appreciation of the evidence and do not require any interference. 5. In the result, we do not find any merit in these two writ petitions and the same are hereby dismissed.Writ rejected. *******