JUDGMENT 1. - By this petition for writ a challenge is given to the correctness, validity and propriety of the judgment dated 19.8.2010 passed by learned Board of Revenue, Rajasthan affirming the judgment dated 14.3.2005 passed by learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Nagaur. 2. In brief, facts of the case are that one Late Shri jetharam son of Girdharilal was having khatedari land in various khasras at village jhalamand. Aforesaid Shri jetharam had four sons viz. Bhanuji, Phusaram, Banshilal and Amroji. Out of aforesaid four brothers Amroji died without having any issue. The respondents No. 5, 6 and 7 are sons of Bhanuji, who was said to be in cultivatory possession of the agricultural land situated in village Jhalamand. Necessary entries in this regard were made in revenue records, however, the land in question was recorded in the name of Phusaram and Banshilal after death of Shri Bhanuji. As per the respondents No. 5 to 7 an assurance was given to them by Phusaram and Banshilal to get necessary corrections in the revenue records, but the same was not done. With this factual background the respondent No. 5, Shri Bhanwarlal filed a revenue suit seeking correction of records, declaration of khatedari rights, partition of property and permanent injunction against the present petitioners, who are legal heirs of Banshilalji and Phusaramji. 3. In written statement the defendant petitioners came forward with a defence that Late Shri jetharam was having a brother "Peeruji" who adopted Bhanuji as his son, therefore, after such adoption Bhanuji lost all his rights arising from his natural father. As per the defendant petitioners the land in question was self- earned property of Shri Jetharam, thus, Bhanuji being adopted son of Peeruji was not having any right and claim therein. 4. The trial Court i.e. the Court of Assistant Collector and Sub Divisional Officer, jodhpur dismissed the suit on 10.4.2000 with a finding that Bhanuji was adopted as son by Peeruji, therefore, his legal heirs could not claim any right in the land that was under tenancy of Shri Jetharam. While giving the finding the trial Court relied upon certain documents including a copy of the statements of Smt. Mooli wife of Peeruji recorded somewhere in the year 1935, while submitting an application to issue patta in favour of Bhanuji for the property owned by Peeruji. 5. While giving the finding the trial Court relied upon certain documents including a copy of the statements of Smt. Mooli wife of Peeruji recorded somewhere in the year 1935, while submitting an application to issue patta in favour of Bhanuji for the property owned by Peeruji. 5. To challenge the judgment and decree dated 10.4.2000 the plaintiff respondent No. 5 approached the first appellate Court (Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur). The Revenue Appellate Authority, jodhpur by judgment dated 14.3.2005 accepted the appeal and decreed the suit as prayed by the plaintiff. While accepting the appeal learned Revenue Appellate Authority thoroughly examined the evidence and considered the same in detail. The Revenue Appellate Authority, jodhpur by judgment dated 14.3.2005 accepted the appeal and decreed the suit as prayed by the plaintiff. While accepting the appeal learned Revenue Appellate Authority thoroughly examined the evidence and considered the same in detail. The reasons given by the Revenue Appellate Authority and also the findings to accept the appeal reads as under: " v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dh i=koyh ij ipkZ fBdkuk ua0 36] 17 ,oa 18 [kljk fxjnkojh la0 2012&14] 2014&17] 2018&20] tekcanh la0 2046&49] HkkV cgh dh vizekf.kr izfr] oa'kkoyh dh izfr] edku ds uD'ks dh izfr] flVh vkQhlj dh vknsf'kdk dh izfr] izkFkZuk i= c;ku iV~Vk bR;kfn dh izfr;ka] 20-10-1960 ds cspku dh izfr] 27-5-1959 ds cspku dh izfr] yxku dh jlhns] [k0 fxjnkjh la0 2046&49] 2040&43] 2036&39 la0 2042&45] 2020&23] 2018&20] 2032&35] 2028&31] 2024&26 bR;kfn is'k dh xbZ gSA xokgksa ds c;ku ihMCyw 1 ls 5 rFkk ihMCyw 1 ls ihMCyw 4 djok;s x;s gSA jsLiks.Ms.V us iV~Vk dk;Zokgh ds nLrkost bl U;k;ky; esa Hkh is'k fd;s x;s gSa tks jsdMZ ij gSA izLrqr jsdMZ ,oa lk{; ls ;g fufoZokn rF; gS fd Lo- tsBwth ds pkj iq= Hkk.kwth] iqlkjke] vejkSth ,oa ca'khyky FksA vejksth ykoYn QkSr ds ckn 'ks"k rhu iq= jgs] tks Lo- tsBwth dh lEifr ds mRRjkf/kdkjh gq,A Lo- tsBsth ds uke ipkZ yxku la0 36] 17 ,oa 18 tkjh gq, gSaA [ka0 ua0 255] 257 ,oa 259 iwlkjke us izkIr fd;s gSA blls Li"V gS fd ;g vkjkth i{kdkjku dh iSr'd lEifr gSA [kljk fxjnkojh laor 2012&14 esa Hkaojyky] iwlkjke ,oa ca'khyky dk [k0 ua0 119] 221] 255] 257] 259 ij dCtk dk'r ntZ gSA rFkk laor~ 2012 esa gh tsBk ds QkSr gksus dk uksV vafdr gSA laoar~ 2014&17 esa [k0 ua0 119 esa dk'r Hkaojyky] Hkk.kw ijljke dh dk'r ntZ gS] tcfd [k0 ua0 257 ij Hkkf.k;ksa ?kkaph dh dk'r ntZ gSA [k0 ua0 221] 255 esa tsBk dh dk'r ntZ gSA rFkk laor~ 2012 esa gh tsBk ds QkSr gksus dk uksV vafdr gSA laor~ 2014&17 esa [k0 ua0 119 esa dk'r Hkaojyky] Hkk.kw ijljke dh dk'r ntZ gS] tcfd [k0 ua0 257 ij Hkkf.k;ksa ?kkaph dh dk'r ntZ gSA [k0 ua0 221] 255 esa tsBk dh dk'r ntZ gSA mDr jsdMZ tsBk dh e'R;q ds ckn Hkh vihykUV ,oa mlds firk ds dCtk dk'r dh iqf"V djrs gSaA jsLiks.Ms.V us ckn ,oa vihy esa xksn dk iz'r mBk;k gS fd Hkk.kth ih#th ds xksn pys x;sA tcfd [kljk fxjnkojh esa laor 2012 ls 2017rd Hkk.kq ,oa Hkojyky dh fookfnr vkjkth esa jsLiks.Ms.V ds lkFk dk'r ntZ gSA ;|fi [kljk fxjnkojh fjdkMZ vkWQ jkbV ugha gS] ysfdu jktLo deZpkfj;ksa }kjk Lohdkj fd;k tkdj vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk rLnhd fd;k tkrk gS] vr% ,sls nLrkost dks udkjk ugha tk ldrkA vxj xksn gksus rks xksn ds 20 o"kZ ckn Hkk.kqth dk uke tsBk dh vkjkth esa D;ksa ntZ gksrk rFkk mlds ckn mlds ckn Hkaojyky vihyk.V dk D;ksa ntZ gqvkA bldk Li"V tokc u rks tokc nkos esa gS ,oa u gh cgl ds nkSjku fn;k x;k gSA xokgksa ds c;kuksa ls u rks xksn dh frfFk ,oa u gh jLe lkfcr gksrh gSA ;g izdj.k xksn dh ?kks"k.kk ;k fujLr djokus ckcr ugha gS] cfYd ?kks"k.kk [kkrsnkjh ckcr gS] ftlesa xksn ckcr dksbZ Mk;jsDV bohMsUl ugha gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa vihyk/khu vkjkth iSr'd gksus ls mRRjkf/kdkj ds vk/kkj ij vihyk.V jsLiks.Ms.V la0 16 ,oa 17 fookfnr vkjkth esa 1&3 fgLlk Hkh [kkrsnkjh ?kksf"kr djokus ds vf/kdkjh gSA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; ;Fkkor j[kus ;ksX; ugha gSA " 6. To challenge the judgment and decree passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, jodhpur a second appeal as per provisions of Section 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 was filed by the petitioner defendants before Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer and that too came to be rejected vide judgment dated 19.8.2010. To challenge the judgment and decree passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, jodhpur a second appeal as per provisions of Section 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 was filed by the petitioner defendants before Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer and that too came to be rejected vide judgment dated 19.8.2010. The consideration made by the Board of Revenue while rejecting the second appeal is as follows: " 7- i=koyh ds voyksdu ls ;g Li"V gS fd ijh{k.k U;k;ky; }kjk rudh la[;k 4 ij fu.kZ; ikfjr djrs gq, ;g ekuk gS fd oknh ds firk Hkk.kwth dks ih#th us xksn fy;k Fkk rFkk tsBkjke ds thoudky esa gh muds ifjokj ls vyx gksdj ih#th ds lkFk cgSfl;r xksn iq= ds jgus yx x;s rFkk ih#th dh tk;nkn ds okfjl cu x;sA LoxhZ; ih#th dh iRuh }kjk iV~Vk vkfQlj] tks/kiwj ds le{k nj[okLr is'k dj ih#th dh tk;nkn dk iV~Vk Hkk.kwth ds uke tkjh djus dh izkFkZuk dh Fkh] vkfn dk mYys[k djrs gq, oknh ds firk Hkk.kwth dk ih#th ds xksn tkuk ekurs gq, oknh ds okn dks [kkfjt fd;k x;k gSA blds foijhr vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk rFkkdfFkr xksn nsus okys tsBk ,oa xksn ysus okys ih#th dh dgha Hkh LdhdkjksfDr ugha gksuk] oknh ds firk }kjk xksn tkus ds lEcU/k esa xksnukes dh izfr is'k ugha gksus xksn dh frfFk dk mYys[k ugha gksus ,oa xksn dh jLe izLrqr c;kuksa ls lkfcr gksuk ugha ekurs gq,] xksn ds lEcU/k esa izLrqr mDr nLrkosth lk{; dks i;kZIr ,oa fo'oluh; ugha ekuk gSA vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk vius fu.kZ; esa ;g Hkh vafdr fd;k x;k fd jsLiks.Ms.V dh IyhfMaXl] lk{; ,oa rdksZa ds vuqlkj tsBk ds thoudky esa gh o"kZ 1935 ls iwoZ gh Hkk.kwth ih#th ds xksn pys x;s tcfd [kljk fxjnkojh laor~ 2012 ls 2017rd Hkk.kwth ,oa Hkaojyky dh fookfnr vkjkth esa jsLih.Ms.V ds lkFk dk'r ntZ gSA vxj Hkk.kwth xksn x;s gksrs] rks xksn ds 20 o"kZ ckn Hkk.kwth dk uke tsBk dh vkjkth esa D;ksa ntZ gksrk rFkk mlds ckn Hkaojyky vihyk.V dk ntZ gqvk] bldk Li"V tokc u rks tokcnkos esa u gh cgl ds nkSjku fn;k x;k gSA bUgha rF;ksa dk mYys[k djrs gq, fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; ,oa fMdzh dks fujLr fd;k x;k gSA 8- gekjh jk; esa fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ftu rF;ksa dk mYys[k djrs gq, oknh ds firk dks xksn tkuk ekurs gq,] okn dks [kkfjt fd;k x;k gS] os i;kZIr ,oa fo'oluh; ugha ekus tk ldrs gSaA dsoy ek= ih#th ds jgokfl; edku dk iV~Vk oknh ds firk Hkk.kwth ds uke tkjh gksus ek= ls ;g ugha ekuk tk ldrk fd oknh ds firk Hkk.kwth ih#th ds xkns pys x;s FksA mDr rudh la[;k 4 dks fl) djus dk Hkkj izfroknhx.k ij Fkk ftuds }kjk xksn tkus ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ Bksl lk{; izLrqr ugha dh x;hA bldh foijhr vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk nLrkosth lk{; ,oa c;kuksa dk mYys[k djrs gq, fof/klEer~ fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA ;ksX; vf/koDrk vihykFkhZx.k gekjs le{k Hkh dksbZ ,slk uohu rF; izLrqr ugha dj lds gSa ftlls ;g ekuk tkos fd vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; ds foijhr fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k gksA mijksDr lEiw.kZ foospu ds vk/kkj ij jktLo vihy izkf/kdkjh] ukxkSj }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; esa fdlh izdkj dk gLr{ksi fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr ugha gksrk gSA " 7. While assailing the judgments dated 19.8.2010 and 14.3.2005, the contention of counsel for the petitioners is that the first appellate Court as well as the second appellate Court materially erred by altering the findings given by the trial Court. As per learned counsel, the adoption of Bhanuji took place somewhere in 1930s, as such the direct evidence to establish the adoption disappeared, therefore, whatever material that indicate towards the adoption should have been believed and burden to disapprove the adoption should had been shifted to the plaintiffs. Counsel for the petitioners mainly emphasised on the statements of Smt. Mooli wife of Peeruji said to be recorded in the year 1935. As per the document aforesaid Smt. Mooli while supporting an application to get patta relating to property of Peeruji in favour of Bhanuji, described Bhanuji as her son. 8. Reliance is also placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Nandkishore v. Brijbehari, reported in 1954 RLW 563 . In the case aforesaid the status of adopted son and its recognition by members of the family was established for number of years and that was challenged by way of filing a suit after a lapse of 45 years. In such circumstances the Division Bench held that an established fact of adoption if desired to de-settled, then i.e. required to be proved by the party approving it. 9. In the instant matter the position is entirely different. The factum of adoption is not at all established and as a matter of fact the plaintiff respondent No. 5 claimed his rights being son of Bhanuji with specific assertion that Bhanuji was son of Jetharam. The petitioner defendants in written statement contested the rights claimed by the plaintiff by advancing the fact about adoption of Bhanuji. As such this fact is required to be established by them only. An issue (issue No. 4) was specifically framed by the trial Court and onus to prove the same, therefore, was rightly placed on the petitioner defendants. It is pertinent to note that there is no definite and direct evidence available on record to establish recognition to the adoption since long. 10. An issue (issue No. 4) was specifically framed by the trial Court and onus to prove the same, therefore, was rightly placed on the petitioner defendants. It is pertinent to note that there is no definite and direct evidence available on record to establish recognition to the adoption since long. 10. The other argument advanced by learned counsel that the fact regarding adoption of Bhanuji was pleaded in quite specific terms by the petitioner defendants in written and that was not denied by the plaintiff respondent, therefore, the same is required to be treated as an admitted fact as per provisions of Order 8, Rule 5 Code of Civil Procedure. Reliance is placed by counsel for the petitioners upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan and others v. M/s Jagadamba Industrial Corporation and others, reported in AIR 2002 SC 2004 and Seth Ramdayal Jat v. Laxmi Prasad, reported in (2009) 11 SCC 545 . 11. The argument advanced by learned counsel is absolutely ill-founded and the judgments on which reliance is placed in no manner supports the preposition advanced. 12. In the case of Rakesh Wadhawan (supra) in the written statement no admission was made, however, a failure was there in making an objection, thus, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that admission is only a piece of evidence and that can be explained. Value of admission has to be determined by keeping in view the circumstances in which it was made and to whom it was made. 13. In the instant matter there is no question of any kind of admission as the plaintiff claimed his right by considering himself as son of Bhanuji and that fact was denied by the defendant petitioners in their written statement. As such, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan (supra) this fact is not an admission but is required to be established through evidence. 14. Similarly, in the case of Seth Ramdayal Jat (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering a definite fact pleaded in plaint giving cause of action to the plaintiff which was denied by the defendants in written statement. The Apex Court held that with the averments contained in plaint, not traversed would be deemed to have been admitted in terms of Order 8, Rule 5 Code of Civil Procedure. 15. The Apex Court held that with the averments contained in plaint, not traversed would be deemed to have been admitted in terms of Order 8, Rule 5 Code of Civil Procedure. 15. Provisions of Order 8, Rule 5 Code of Civil Procedure in most unambiguous terms pertains to specific denial or denial by necessary implication relating to allegation of fact in the plaint. The provisions of Order 8, Rule 5 Code of Civil Procedure ipse-dixit cannot be made applicable relating to denial of fact by a plaintiff on submitting rejoinder. 16. Counsel for the petitioners also tried to substantiate his contentions by placing on record a document i.e. said to be an agreement written in the year 1942. This document is first time placed on record in this petition for writ. I do not consider it appropriate to examine the document aforesaid while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. No factual foundation is led to prove that document before the Courts below. 17. On examination of the judgments impugned, it is apparent that both the Courts below discussed the evidence quite adequately and gave definite findings. The findings are not at all suffered with any error apparent on the fact of record warranting interference by this Court while exercising supervisory powers. In such circumstances I am not at all inclined to disturb the findings of fact. 18. Accordingly the petition for writ is dismissed.Writ petition dismissed. *******