Judgment Prem Shanker Asopa, J.-That by this writ petition the petitioners seek to challenge the Judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 19.05.1993 whereby Judgment of the Revenue Appellate authority in eight appeals preferred by both the parties arising out of four revenue suits decreed in favour of the plaintiffs-petitioners, have been reversed and all the four suits have been dismissed. 2. Brifly stated the relevant facts of the case are that initially, the petitioners filed four civil suits under Sections 88 and 89 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short the Act of 1955) in the Court of Assistant Collector, Nadbai, district Bharatpur, Rajasthan, for declaration and recovery of amount from the common defendant Malkhan S/o Sanwal and subsequently the same were amended on 212.1985 and the relief of possession was also added. In the said revenue suits, the petitioners have sought the declaration of their khatedari rights in New Khasra Nos. 2901, 2902, 2903 and 2904 of 19 Biswas each. The relief of possession as well as the recovery of the amount is also in respect of the said khasra number. 3. The case of the petitioners before the A.C.M. was that the names of their ancestors were recorded in the old Khasra No. 1966 of the said New Khasra numbers as Makbuja Malkhan i.e., Zamindari land which was mortgaged to Sanwal and Malkhan (usufractary) in Samvat 2012 which was subsequently redeemed by their father in Samvat, 2016 and was divided in them in Samvat 2022. Further case of the petitioner is that on coming into force of the Rajastahn Jamabandi and Biswadari Abolition Act, 1959 (for short ‘the Act of 1959’), they become the khatedars of the said land. However, a wrong entry was made in the revenue record in favour of the defendant as khatedar and against the father of petitioner as Shikmi Kashtkar. Therefore, the suits have become necessary. The defendant filed the written statement and on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, six issues have been framed. After taking evidence of the parties documentary as well as oral, and further after hearing both the parties, the Assistant Collector, Nadbai decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiffs-petitioners. However, the Issue No. 5 relating to the recovery of the amount of Rs. 3,650/-was decided against the petitioners. After taking evidence of the parties documentary as well as oral, and further after hearing both the parties, the Assistant Collector, Nadbai decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiffs-petitioners. However, the Issue No. 5 relating to the recovery of the amount of Rs. 3,650/-was decided against the petitioners. Consequently all the four revenue suit were partly decreed in favour of the plaintiffs-petitioners vide order dated 22.06.1986 passed by A.C.M. Nadbai. 4. Against the said orders, four appeals were filed by Malkhan to challenge the findings on Issue Nos. 1 to 4 and four appeals were filed by the petitioners to the extent of challenging the finding on Issue No. 5. The appeals filed by the petitioners on Issue No.5 have been accepted by Revenue Appellate Authority vide order dated 29.06.1988 whereas the appeals filed by Malkhan have been rejected after discussing evidence, considering Exhibit P.1 and Exhibit P. 2 as documents of redemption and not a mortgage deed and further possession of petitioners as Zamindars when the Act of 1959 came into force. Consequently the civil suits filed by the petitioners were decreed in its entirety. The relevant portion of the Judgment of the Revenue Appellate Authority is reproduced as follows:- 5. Against the order of Revenue Appellate Authority, Malkhan Singh filed four second appeals before the Board of Revenue under Section 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. The Board of Revenue vide its order dated 19.05.1993 accepted all the appeals filed by Malkhan Singh on the ground that the suits filed by the plaintiffs were itself not maintainable and further the plaintiffs have to stand on their own legs. The documents Exhibit P.1 and Exhibit P. 2 have been considered and even Exhibit 2.P.2 was held inadmissible in evidence. It appears that the Board of Revenue has considered the entire case as if it was hearing the first appeal. 6. The documents Exhibit P.1 and Exhibit P. 2 have been considered and even Exhibit 2.P.2 was held inadmissible in evidence. It appears that the Board of Revenue has considered the entire case as if it was hearing the first appeal. 6. The submission of the Counsel for the petitioners is that the Board of Revenue in case of concurrent finding of facts has acted as first appellate Court while deciding second appeals, and has re-appreciated the evidence, thus gone beyond the scope of Section 224 of the Act of 1955 according to which the Board can only interfere if the decision is contrary to law or to some usage having the force of law; the decision having failed to determine some material issue, a substantial error or defect in the procedure and the decision being contrary to the weight of evidence on record where the lower appellate Court has varied or reversed any finding. 7. The further submission of the Counsel for the petitioners is that none of the aforesaid contingencies apply as the present case was affirmation of finding by the first appellate Court on Issue Nos. 1 to 4 on the basis of which the civil suit was decreed. 8. He also submitted that the earlier revenue record upto Samvat, 2012 and subsequent documents of redemption of mortgage of Samvat 2016 and the possession was taken over. The oral statement of the villagers categorically reveal that the petitioners are sons of Zamindar Anti Ram and after redemption of the disputed land from mortgage. The possession continued with them. They became khatedars, on account of their possession in revenue record under Section 29 of the Act of 1959, which came into force on 11.1959. .9. The respondents have not filed any reply. However, the oral arguments on their behalf were advanced by Shri Ranveer Singh, Advocate, who has supported the Judgment of Board of Revenue and has submitted that there was substantial error in the Judgment of the Revenue Appellate Authority and the A.C.M. which have been corrected by the Board of Revenue. 10. I have gone though the record of the case and considered the rival submissions of the parties. 11. Section 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 reads as under: - “224. Appeals from appellate decrees.-(1) An appeal shall lie to the [Revenue Appellate Authority] from a decree passed in appeal by a Collector. 10. I have gone though the record of the case and considered the rival submissions of the parties. 11. Section 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 reads as under: - “224. Appeals from appellate decrees.-(1) An appeal shall lie to the [Revenue Appellate Authority] from a decree passed in appeal by a Collector. .(2) An appeal shall lie to the Board from a decree passed in appeal by [Revenue Appellate Authority] on any of the following grounds, namely:- .(i) the decision being contrary to law or to some usage having the force of law; .(ii) the decision having failed to determine some material issue of law or usage having the force of law; .(iii) a substantialerror or defect in the procedure provided by or under this Act or by any other law for the time being in force, which may possibly have produced an error or defect in the decision of the case upon the merits; and .(iv) the decision being contrary to the weight of evidence on record where the lower appellate Court has carried or reversed any finding of the trial Court on a question of fact.” 12. That as per the Scheme of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, the Court of original jurisdiction is the A.C.M./ S.D.O. or Collector, where the revenue suits are filed against the Judgment and decree of the S.D.O. The first appeal is to be filed under Section 223 of the Act of 1955 before the Revenue Appellate Authority. The law is well settled that the first appellate Court shall exercise the same jurisdiction which was exercised by the original Court. The law is well settled that the first appellate Court shall exercise the same jurisdiction which was exercised by the original Court. Therefore, it can appreciate the evidence and correct the finding or affirm the same but the jurisdiction of the second appellate Court under Section 224 is limited by the legislature and the same can only be exercised if there is an error of law or to some usage having the force of law, the decision having failed to determine some material issue of law or usage having the force of law, a substantial error or defect in the procedure provided by or by under this Act or by any other law for the time being in force, which may possiblY have produced an error or defect in the decision of the case upon the merits and the decision being contrary to the weight of evidence on record where the lower appellate Court has varied or reversed any finding of the trial Court on a question of fact. Usually the scope of the second appeal is restricted as the legislation intends an end to litigation and further provisions of the second appeal are usually strictly construed and restricted to the condition mentioned therein. Although the Section 24 is not para materia with Section 100 of CPC for filing second appeal before the Civil Court but still it has to be construed strictly. 13. The submission of Mr. Rajendra Prasad that the decision of the A.C.M. or the Revenue Appellate Authority will not cover in any of the aforesaid contingencies nor the Board has specified said contingency. The writ petition deserves to be accepted on this ground alone. 14. The submission of Counsel for the respondents is that the Board of Revenue has rightly held that the suits were not maintainable. 15. The Board of Revenue has held that the suits are not maintainable, without discussing the provision of law under which the said suits have been filed under Sections 88 and 89 of the Act of 1955, as such the civil suits for declaration, possession and recovery of amount are maintainable. Therefore, I am of the view that the Board has exceeded its jurisdiction while holding that the civil suits are not maintainable. 16. Therefore, I am of the view that the Board has exceeded its jurisdiction while holding that the civil suits are not maintainable. 16. Since the arguments have been raised on the issue of accrual or not accrual of khaterdari rights under Section 29 of the Act of 1959 after the redemption of the land by both the parties, therefore, I deem it proper to consider this aspect of the matter also. In Samvat 2016 when the Act of 1959 came into force the land was in possession of the petitioners, therefore, the petitioners acquired khatedari rights being sons of Zamidar under Section 29 of the Act of 1959 and further the respondents-defendants were Gair Moursidar, not covered by term tenant, therefore, they could not acquire any right under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, according to which only the tenant is entitled for khatedari rights. Apart from above, the land was held by the respondents-defendants in the capacity of mortgagee, therefore, they are not sub-tenants and even not entitled for khatedari rights under Section 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, for which the contract of tenancy is also to be proved. I am of the view that the findings on issue Nos. 1 to 4 given by the trial Court and the appellate Court are in accordance with law and deserve to be affirmed whereas the Judgment of Board of Revenue reversing the findings on the aforesaid issues is not sustainable. The contentions of respondents deserve to be rejected. 9.17. In the result the writ petition is allowed and the Judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 29.06.1988 is quashed and set-aside and the Judgment of the Revenue Appellate Authority and A.C.M. Nadbai are restored.