Honble SHARMA, J.—The suit filed by petitioners (for short plaintiffs) against the respondents (for short defendants) was dismissed by Sub Divisional Officer Dausa on June 8, 1979 holding that the plaintiffs could not claim to be the khatedar tenant under section 19 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short the Act). Plaintiffs first and second appeals were also dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and Board of Revenue. Hence this writ petition. (2). Contextual facts depict that the plaintiffs filed a declaratory suit on July 21,1956 claiming that they were khatedar tenant of khasra No. 203/1 (395/1 and 396) measuring 8 bighas 2 biswas. The plaintiffs had been in cultivatory possession of the land in dispute much before Svt. 2012 and they should have been declared as khatedar tenant of the land. The defendants in their written statement pleaded that the land in dispute had been in their possession and they were khatedar of the said land. Sub Divisional Officer Dausa vide judgment dated June 8, 1979 dismissed the suit. Revenue Appellate Authority Jaipur vide judgment dated November 18, 1982 agreed with the findings of Sub Divisional Officer and dismissed the first appeal. Plaintiffs thereafter preferred second appeal before the Board of Revenue, but it was also dismissed on September 6, 1993. (3). I have heard learned counsel for parties and scanned the material on record. (4). The point as to whether entry in the khasra girdawari under revenue laws of former Jaipur State was a proof of its correctness or not ?, came up for consideration in Mala vs. Board of Revenue (DBC Writ Petition No. 185/1953, decided on February 1,1956). It was held that Khasra Girdawari was an annual register as per the revenue laws of former Jaipur State which were then in force, and the law down a presumption that the entries made therein were true. (5). A bare reading of the impugned findings revealed that the plaintiffs had been in cultivatory possession of the land in dispute between Svt. 2012 to 2019. In khasra girdawari for Samvat 2008-2009 (Ex.4) plaintiff Abdul Hamid Khan had been recorded as khatedar in column No. 7. In khasra girdawaries for Samvat 2011 and 2012 (Ex.5 and Ex.6) also Abdul Hamid Khan was shown as khatedar. Unquestionably in the year 1955 (Svt. 2012 to 2019. In khasra girdawari for Samvat 2008-2009 (Ex.4) plaintiff Abdul Hamid Khan had been recorded as khatedar in column No. 7. In khasra girdawaries for Samvat 2011 and 2012 (Ex.5 and Ex.6) also Abdul Hamid Khan was shown as khatedar. Unquestionably in the year 1955 (Svt. 2012) when the Act came into force, Abdul Hamid Khan was in the cultivatory possession of the land in question and was entitled to be declared as khatedar tenant. The courts below committed error in not considering the revenue laws of former Jaipur State in regard to entries made in khasra girdawari. (6). For these reasons, I allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned findings of the courts below. The suit filed by the plaintiffs stands decreed. There shall be no order as to costs.