Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1188 (RAJ)

Daya Kaur v. Board of Revenue

2006-04-15

K.S.RATHORE

body2006
Judgment K.S. Rathore, J.-A suit was filed by the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 against Shri Dil Sukh, Respondent No. 7, Smt. Pana, Respondent No. 8, Smt. Jatli and Smt. Mathri, Repondent No. 9 and as also against Respondent No. 4, Tehsildar, under Sections 88, 188 and 53 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Jhunjhunu. 2. It was alleged in the suit that the land originally belongs to one Kheta Ram, father of the plaintiffs and Respondents No. 7 to 9 but after his death the land in question got recorded in the name of Shri Dil Sukh, original Defendant No. 1 on the basis of adoption deed, while as per the suit, he was only entitled to get 1/6th share as Kheta Ram was having five daughters. 3. The S.D.O. vide its Judgment dated 03.04.1995 decreed the suit of the plaintiff and held, that the plaintiff and the defendants are entitled for 1/6th share and they be declared Khatedar tenants of their respective shares. The order passed by the S.D.O. was challenged by the defendant Dil Sukh by filing an appeal before the Settlement Officer-Cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, Sikar. The Revenue Appellate Authority vide its Judgment dated 06.06.1996 set aside the Judgment and decree dated 03.04.1995 of the S.D.O., Jhunjhunu which was challenged by the Respondent Nos. 7, 8 and 9 before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue vide its Judgment s dated 24.05.2001 allowed the appeal and set aside the Judgment dated 06.06.1996 of the Revenue Appellate Authority and restored the Judgment and decree dated 03.04.1995 of the S.D.O. 4. Aggrieving and dissatisfying with the Judgment dated 24.05.2001 and 03.04.1995 passed by the Board of Revenue and S.D.O. this writ petition is preferred on the ground that the Board of Revenue seriously erred not to take into consideration that Shri Dil Sukh was taken in adoption by Shri Kheta Ram and Kheta Ram had executed a adoption deed/Will in favour of Shri Dil Sukh of the land which was acquired by Shri Kheta Ram out of his own resources. And thus for the self acquired land by Kheta Ram, Dil Sukh being the adoptive son is the exclusive owner of the property. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further challenged the order impugned on the ground that the Respondent Nos. And thus for the self acquired land by Kheta Ram, Dil Sukh being the adoptive son is the exclusive owner of the property. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further challenged the order impugned on the ground that the Respondent Nos. 5 to 9 are the daughters of late Shri Kheta Ram and they are married woman and they have no right, title or interest in the property of Shri Kheta Ram and it was Dil Sukh alone who was having a right, title and interest on the basis of adoption deed. 6. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the Board of Revenue rightly decided the controversy holding that Dil Sukh Ram husband of Petitioner No. 1 and father of Respondents No. 2 to 6 who are sons and daughters have equal 1/6th share in the property of Kheta Ram and decided the appeal as per provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The Board of Revenue also held that after coming into force of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, Kheta Ram became Khatedar of the land in question and on the death of Khatedar tenant the land succeeded to the legal heirs of deceased Khatedar as per provisions of Section 40 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act which provides “Succession to Tenants. When a tenant dies intestate his interest in his holding shall devolve in accordance with the personal law to which subjected at the time of his death. Thus, considering all aspects and submissions the Board of Revenue rightly upheld the Judgment passed by the S.D.O. and the petitioner can only be held 1/6th share in the property of Khata Ram 7. Having considered the rival submissions of the respective parties and upon perusal of the Judgment passed by the S.D.O., Revenue Appellate Authority and Board of Revenue, learned S.D.O. and Board of Revenue after having considered the provisions of Section 40 of the Hindu Succession Act and the provisions of Rajasthan Tenancy Act have rightly held that the petitioner only entitled to retain 1/6th share of the property. The Revenue Appellate Authority has not rightly considered the aspect and thus the Board of Revenue rightly quashed and set aside the Judgment and decree passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and upheld the Judgment passed by the S.D.O. 8. The Revenue Appellate Authority has not rightly considered the aspect and thus the Board of Revenue rightly quashed and set aside the Judgment and decree passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and upheld the Judgment passed by the S.D.O. 8. Consequently, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed being devoid of merit with no order as to cost.