Hon'ble MAHESHWARI, J.—Revenue suit for declaration and perpetual injunction as filed by the plaintiff-respondents No. 1 Mohan Lal having been decreed by the Assistant Collector, Doongarpur by the judgment and decree dated 17.4.1996 as amended on 21.5.1996 (Annex. 1); the first appeal taken by the defendants to the Revenue Appellate Authority, Doongarpur ('RAA' for short) having been dismissed on 28.10.1996 (Annex. 2); and the second appeal taken to the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer ('the Board' for short) having also been dismissed on 12.6.2002 (Annex. 3), the unsuccessful defendants seek to invoke writ jurisdiction of this Court by way of this writ petition. However, this writ petition was filed only on 12.3.2004; and, after removing the defects, was considered on 26.7.2005 when the relevant records were ordered to be requisitioned. After receipt of the records, learned counsel for the petitioners has been heard on admission. 2. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 Mohan Lal filed the suit aforesaid on 1.1.1973 in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Doongarpur ('SDO' for short) essentially with the submissions that the agricultural land situated at village Shishod Fala Bijoda as described in paragraph-1 of the plaint was purchased by him from its khatedar Manji son of Boda Bheel under the sale deed dated 8.2.1972. The plaintiff asserted having been delivered possession of the land in question by the vendor Manji; and himself having cultivated the same. While asserting that the defendants were not having any co-relation with the land in question, the plaintiff submitted that his crops were standing on one part of the land in question as comprised in Araji No. 1283 wherein the defendants attempted to intrude and were trying to dispossess him. The plaintiff submitted that he was the lawful khatedar of the land in question and the acts of intrusion by the defendants were required to be prohibited. The plaintiff prayed for declaration about his khatedari and possession; and for perpetual injunction so as to restrain the defendants from interfering with his possession on the land in question. 3. Perusal of the record makes out that the defendants initially filed their written statement on 7.2.1973 essentially with the submissions that Manji was a person of unsound mind and was never in cultivatory possession of the land in question. 3. Perusal of the record makes out that the defendants initially filed their written statement on 7.2.1973 essentially with the submissions that Manji was a person of unsound mind and was never in cultivatory possession of the land in question. The defendants asserted themselves being the near relatives of late Shri Bada who had, according to the defendants, given the entire land to them years ago and all the rights came vesting in them. The defendants asserted themselves being in cultivatory possession of the land in question; and also submitted that the brother of the plaintiff having filed another suit bearing No. 36/1971 for recovery of possession and for perpetual injunction, the plaintiff was not entitled for any relief. It was also stated that the plaintiffs vendor Manji did file yet another suit bearing No. 43/1970 that was dismissed for want of evidence on 15.9.1971 and such a decision would operate as res judicata. 4. It appears that initially the issues were framed in the suit on 5.9.1974 but thereafter the defendants were permitted to amend their written statement taking the additional pleas that said Shri Bada in his life time executed a Will in their favour on 9.5.1961 and handed over the land in question to them. The plaintiff filed a replication denying if the defendants were ever handed over khatedari rights and cultivatory possession of the land in question and asserted that the alleged Will was a fabricated document. The plaintiff also denied the allegation that Manji was a person of unsound mind. On 14.9.1977, the learned Sub-Divisional Officer proceeded to frame yet further issues in the case in view of the additional pleadings of the parties. The plaintiff also denied the allegation that Manji was a person of unsound mind. On 14.9.1977, the learned Sub-Divisional Officer proceeded to frame yet further issues in the case in view of the additional pleadings of the parties. The issues as framed on 5.9.1974 and further issues as framed on 14.9.1977 read as under:- ^^1- D;k [kkrk ua- 357 ds [ksr la[;k 622] 623] 669] 1238] 1247] 1273] 1278] 1280] 1281] 1282] 1283] 1286 oknh us rkjh[k 8-2-1972 dks [kjhn fd;s gSa\ &oknh 2- D;k mDr [ksrksa ij oknh dk dCtk gS\ &oknh 3- D;k oknh LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk tkjh djkus dk vf/kdkjh gS=\ &oknh 4- D;k izfroknh] oknh dks bu [ksrksa ls csn[ky djuk pkgrs gSa vkSj blh dkj.k jch lu~ 1972 dh Qly esa [ksr ua- 1286 esa izfroknhx.k us enk[kyr dh\ &oknh 5- D;k eqdnek ua- 43@1970 dk fu.kZ; res judicata ds rgr vkrk gS\ &izfroknh 6- D;k bu [ksrksa ij izfroknhx.k dk xr 20 o"kksZ ls dCtk gS\ ftlls os [kkrsnkj dkLrdkj cu pqds gS\ &izfroknh 7- i{kdkj fdl nknjlh ds vf/kdkjh gS\** ^^¼7½ D;k Jh cnk us 22-23 o"kZ iwoZ mlds [kkrk dh tehu fooknxzLr izfroknh la- 1] 2 dks dk'r djus lqiwnZ dj nh Fkh vkSj ,slk izekf.kr gks rks bldk okn ij D;k vlj gS\ ¼8½ D;k Jh cUnk ls fnukad 9-5-1961 ds izfroknhx.k ds i{k esa olh;rukek lEikfnr dj fn;k gS vkSj bldk okn ij D;k vlj gS\ ¼9½ D;k fcuk dCts dh nkn ekaxus ij oknh dk ;g okn pyus ;ksX; gS\ ¼10½ i{kdkj fdl nknjlh ds vf/kdkjh gS\ 5. After taking the evidence led by the defendants, the learned SDO proceeded to decide the suit by the judgment and decree dated 5.2.1979. Though a copy of the judgment and decree dated 5.2.1979 has not been placed on the record of this writ petition, however, a perusal of the same from the original record makes out that the learned trial Court essentially dealt with 7 issues as framed earlier and did not take into account the issue framed later on. 6. Though a copy of the judgment and decree dated 5.2.1979 has not been placed on the record of this writ petition, however, a perusal of the same from the original record makes out that the learned trial Court essentially dealt with 7 issues as framed earlier and did not take into account the issue framed later on. 6. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer, of course, decided issue No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff with the finding that he had purchased the suit land under the sale deed dated 8.2.1972 but then, decided issue No. 2 and 3 against the plaintiff with the findings that he had not been able to establish if Manji delivered the land in his possession; that a suit for recovery of possession was filed by the plaintiff that was withdrawn; that the plaintiff never informed the Court if he had recovered the possession of the suit property; and that the plaintiff was not entitled to any injunction for want of possession. However, the learned SDO proceeded to observe that none of the parties made submissions in relation to issue Nos. 4 and 5; and proceeded to drop the said issues. In issue No. 6, the learned SDO observed that the defendants had failed to adduce any documentary evidence in proof of their khatedari rights and in this suit as filed by the plaintiff, it was not necessary to accord khatedari rights to the defendants. As a result of such discussion, the learned SDO dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1. 7. The aforesaid judgment and decree dated 5.2.1979 were challenged by the plaintiff before the RAA in Appeal No. 30/1979 that came to be decided on 6.8.1986. The learned RAA was of opinion that the issues were not properly framed; and proceeded to frame two more issues while remanding the matter to the learned trial Court. The issues additionally framed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority read as under:- ^^1- D;k eqrnkfo;k tehu ij izfroknh dk dCtk eq[kkyQkuk brus vlsZ dk gS ftlls 63¼4½ ds vUrxZr [kkrsnkjh lekIr gks xbZ o oknh dCtk izkIr djus ugha dj ldrkA &izfroknh 2- eqrnkfo;k tehu ij rkjh[k fcdko dks euth dks cspus dk vf/kdkj Fkk o fcdko ls oknh [kkrsnkjh vf/kdkj ikus ds vf/kdkjh gSA &oknh** 8. The record of the case makes out that after remand, the learned trial Court took up further proceedings, certain documents were also filed; and then on 6.11.1989, the suit was transferred to the Court of Assistant Collector, Doongarpur. The learned Assistant Collector extended opportunity of leading evidence to the parties and on 12.3.1991, the plaintiff examined a witness Rupsi and closed his evidence. On the other hand, on 23.2.1993, the defendants examined a witness Basanti Lal and thereafter, closed their evidence on 27.4.1993. The learned Trial Court ultimately heard the arguments on 3.4.1996 and proceeded to decree the suit on 17.4.1996; and on 21.5.1996, amended the decree in relation to the legal representatives of the defendant No. 1 Punja and the defendant No. 2 Marta. 9. In the impugned judgment and decree dated 17.4.1996/21.5.1996, the learned Assistant Collector found that on 28.6.1970, the land in question was duly mutated in the name of Manji in place of Bada; and the sale document by Manji in favour of plaintiff Mohan Lal was duly executed on 8.2.1972 and registered on 10.2.1972. The learned Assistant Collector observed that earlier the suit was dismissed only on the ground that the plaintiff was not found in possession and then, referred to the additional issues framed by the learned Appellate Court but decided the same against the defendants with the finding that the defendants had failed to establish if they were in adverse possession of the suit land or that the plaintiffs khatedari rights came to an end. 10. The learned Assistant Collector also rejected the case of the defendants, as based on the alleged Will dated 9.5.1961 with the finding that it was an unregistered document scribed in a Bahi and was not even proved by producing the scribe or the attesting witnesses. The learned Assistant Collector also found that Manji was lawfully entitled to sell and there was nothing on record to show if he was not in possession of the land in question. The learned Assistant Collector also observed that presently the land in question was not in possession of any party but was in possession of the Receiver; and found it just and proper that the same be delivered in possession of the khatedar, i.e., the plaintiff. 11. The learned Assistant Collector also observed that presently the land in question was not in possession of any party but was in possession of the Receiver; and found it just and proper that the same be delivered in possession of the khatedar, i.e., the plaintiff. 11. In regard to the additional issues as framed on 14.9.1977, the learned Assistant Collector observed that no justification was available on record where for Bada would have bequeathed the land to the defendants while his son Manji was available, and also observed that the defendants have failed to lead any evidence if Bada handed over the land to them. The learned Assistant Collector also observed that if at all the defendants were in possession, their cultivation would have been shown in any of the Girdawaries but no such revenue record was produced. The learned Assistant Collector held that no right accrued to the defendants on the basis of the alleged Will that was not proved; and observed that nothing more was required to be stated in relation to issue Nos. 9 and 10. 12. The learned trial Court, accordingly, decreed the suit declaring the plaintiff as khatedar of the land in question and directed the Receiver to hand over the same in possession of the plaintiff while the defendants were restrained from interfering with cultivatory possession of the plaintiff. The learned trial Court declared and directed,- ^^vr% nkok oknh fMØh djds xzke f'k'kksn dh vkjkth [kkrk ua- 357 ds vkjkth [k-ua- 622] 623] 669] 1238] 1273] 1274] 1278] 1279] 1280] 1281] 1282] 1283 ,oa 1286 dh [kkrsnkjh oknh ds i{k esa ?kksf"kr dh tkrh gS mDrkuqlkj jktLo vfHkys[k esa vadu fd;k tkosA fookfnr vkjkth dk dCtk oknh dks lqiqZn djus ds fy, fjlhoj dks vkns'k tkjh gksA izfroknh dks LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ls ikcUn fd;k tkrk gS fd oknh ds dCts dk'r] mi;ksx] miHkksx esa izR;{k vFkok ijks{k :i ls fdlh izdkj dh ck/kk mRiUu u djsaA** 13. The appeal taken by the defendants against the judgment and decree aforesaid came to be dismissed by the RAA on 28.10.1996 with the finding that the decision of the learned trial Court was based on due consideration of the material on record and no case for interference was made out. The unsuccessful defendants took the matter in second appeal before the Board of Revenue. The unsuccessful defendants took the matter in second appeal before the Board of Revenue. The board while rejecting the contention urged on behalf of the defendants, found that they have failed to prove the Will by producing the attesting witness and have failed to establish their adverse possession. It was held that the plea as taken by the defendants-appellants about Manji being a person of unsound mind was entirely baseless while noticing that the appellants themselves relied on another sale deed dated 12.12.1974 as executed by the same Shri Manji in favour of some other person. The Board found the orders as passed by the learned subordinate authorities to be in conformity with law requiring no interference. 14. Seeking to assail the judgment and decree aforesaid; it is contended on behalf of the petitioners in this writ petition that the suit filed by the plaintiff having once been dismissed and the matter having been remanded by the First Appellate Court after framing two more issues, it was incumbent for the learned trial Court to have taken further evidence in the matter and then to have recorded a finding on all the relevant issues. However, according to the learned counsel, the learned trial Court has acted wholly illegally in not taking further evidence and in not delivering issue-wise finding. It is submitted that the question of possession has not been specifically decided by the learned trial Court after remand; and earlier it was found by the trial Court that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property; and it is contended that in such a state of record, the suit for declaration and injunction ought to have been dismissed. It is also contended that the learned trial Court has acted wholly illegally in not recording any finding on issue No. 5 on the question that the suit filed by Manji having been dismissed, the said decision would operate as res judicata. 15. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and having examined the record, this Court is unable to find any reason to interfere in this matter in the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction. 16. 15. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and having examined the record, this Court is unable to find any reason to interfere in this matter in the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction. 16. The substance of the matter remains that the land in question has been khatedari land of late Shri Bada and after Bada, came to be recorded in the name of his son Manji who sold the same to the plaintiff under a registered sale deed. The defendants alleged having in their favour a Will dated 9.6.1961 as executed by Bada but totally failed to prove the said Will by producing the requisite evidence, particularly the attesting witnesses. Even otherwise, the defendants failed to explain that if at all a Will executed in the year 1961 has been existing in their favour, as to what steps were taken by them to have the same enforced and as to what steps were taken by them when the land is question came to be recorded in the name of Manji after the demise of Bada? It appears that Bada having executed a Will in their favour was a fanciful story put forward by the defendants nearly four years after filing of their original written statement in the suit and then, the defendants were unable to prove this story by lawful evidence. 17. It is also noticed that the defendants though cursorily suggested having acquired the rights by way of adverse possession but the uncertain plea of adverse possession was also not substantiated by cogent evidence. It has specifically been pointed out by the learned revenue authorities that no Girdawari was produced by the defendants to show if at all they were is possession of the suit land. 18. In the face of clear finding that Manji was lawful khatedar of the land in question and the plaintiff was a lawful purchaser from Manji; and that the defendants have failed to show any title existing in them and have failed to substantiate the case of adverse possession, the learned revenue authorities cannot be said to have committed any substantial error in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff. The suggestion about want of specific finding in favour of the plaintiff in relation to the possession of the suit land does not make out a case for interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court particularly when it has been found that the defendants failed to establish their possession on the suit land and when the suit land was found to be in possession of the Receiver. In the given fact situation, want of specific finding regarding possession of the plaintiff cannot be considered having material effect on the substance of the matter; and the directions by the learned trial Court for delivery of possession by the Receiver to the plaintiff appear leading only to substantial justice granting effective relief to the plaintiff. 19. The submission about omission on the part of the learned trial Court to decide all the issues after remand relates more to the matter of form rather than of substance. It is, of course, true that the impugned judgment dated 17.4.1996/21.5.1996 appears to be somewhat infelicitous and it was desirable that the issues were distinctly stated and decided in a sequence; and it appears that the findings on various aspects have got intermingled in the discussion as made by the learned Assistant Collector; however, such flaws seem to have arisen essentially because of overlapping issues as framed in the case twice over by the learned trial Court and further more by the learned First Appellate Court which remanding the matter. However, some flaw in the frame of the judgment hardly takes away the substance of the matter where the learned trial Court had categorically found that the plaintiff is a lawful purchaser from the khatedar of the land in question having all the khatedari rights and that the defendants have failed to establish their right in the land in question. In the face of such findings, irrespective of the frame of the judgment, the plaintiff was rightly held entitled to adequate reliefs so as to uphold and enforce his legal rights. 20. The submission that the learned trial Court decided the suit after remand without taking the evidence is not correct. The record of the trial Court makes out that the parties were extended adequate opportunity of leading evidence after remand and witnesses were indeed examined as noticed above. 21. 20. The submission that the learned trial Court decided the suit after remand without taking the evidence is not correct. The record of the trial Court makes out that the parties were extended adequate opportunity of leading evidence after remand and witnesses were indeed examined as noticed above. 21. In relation to the further submission that no specific finding was returned on issue No. 5 framed on the question of effect of dismissal of the suit filed by Manji, noticeable it is that the learned trial Court proceeded to drop the said issue while delivering its initial decision on 5.2.1979. Such a dropped issue did not revive for consideration even if the matter was remanded by the First Appellate Court. There is no indication in the remand order dated 6.8.1986 for revival of the said issue No. 5 that was specifically dropped by the trial Court on 5.2.1979. 22. Having examined the matter in its totality, this Court is satisfied that the impugned orders do not suffer from any jurisdictional error or fundamental illegality nor lead to manifest failure of justice. There does not appear any reason to consider any interference in the impugned order as passed by the Board of Revenue on 12.6.2002 in this writ petition that was filed only on 11.3.2004. The writ petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed summarily.