JUDGMENT 1. - Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners to challenge the judgment rendered by the Board of Revenue dated 23.8.2005 and order dated 25.9.2000, so also, the judgment passed by the Settlement Officer-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur dated 30.10.1997 and the judgment and decree passed by the Assistant Collector dated 10.8.1989 and further prayed that the suit of the petitioner may be decreed as prayed for in the suit. 2. As per brief facts of the case, for the agriculture land in question situated in village Sabalpura Tehsil Girwa (District Udaipur) the khatedar of the land late Lakha executed a gift-deed in favour of his sister Dhapu and brother-in-law Ganga Ram on 25.1.1960. The original khatedar Lakha died in the year 1962. Thereafter, Dhapu also expired in the year 1972. 3. After the death of Dhapu, respondent Kuka and his father forcibly and illegally entered into the possession on the basis of illegal entry in the revenue record. Late Ganga Ram and his son filed a suit under Sections 88, 183 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act in the Court of Assistant Collector (S.D.O.), Girwa against Dhanna and his son Kuka. In the suit, the defendants Dhanna and Kuka filed written-statement and admitted that Lakha executed a gift-deed on 25.1.1960 in favour of Dhapu and Ganga Ram and also admitted that late Lakha died in the year 1962 and, thereafter, Dhapu also died in the year 1977; but, denied that Dhapu was in possession of the disputed land. In the life-time of Lekha, defendant No. 1 was in possession of the said land with late Lakha and, after death of Lakha, Dhanna became owner of the property. 4. The Trial Court framed 4 issues and, for issues No. 1 and 2 the burden of proof was upon the plaintiffs and, for issues No. 3 and 4, the burden of proof was left upon the defendants. The Assistant Collector, Udaipur after hearing both the parties dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 10.8.1989 holding that the defendants have not filed any documentary evidence to prove their possession and decided issue No. 4 against the defendants and held that they are not in possession of the land in question. 5. The Assistant Collector, Udaipur after hearing both the parties dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 10.8.1989 holding that the defendants have not filed any documentary evidence to prove their possession and decided issue No. 4 against the defendants and held that they are not in possession of the land in question. 5. No appeal was preferred by defendants against the finding given for issue No. 4 but the petitioner-plaintiffs filed appeal before the Settlement Officer-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority and, in appeal, application under Order 41, Rule 27 , C.P.C. was filed for taking on record certain documents in evidence but the Appellate Court decided the appeal without deciding the application holding that the defendants became khatedar of the land in question by adverse possession. The Appellate Court also reversed the finding on issues No. 1 and 4 without any appeal or cross-objection filed by the defendants. The plaintiffs preferred second appeal but the Board of Revenue, Ajmer dismissed the second appeal vide judgment dated 25.9.2000 without considering the grounds taken by the petitioners in the appeal and further, review petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 23.8.2005. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the original Court did not decide issue No. 1 in right perspective and, so also, the Revenue Appellate Authority exceeded its jurisdiction while reversing the finding given by the Trial Court against the petitioners in their appeal in favour of the defendants, so also, while reversing the finding on issue No. 4 with regard to possession, therefore, in appeal all the grounds were taken by the petitioners before the Board of Revenue but it is very strange that the Board of Revenue also decided the second appeal in very casual manner and dismissed the appeal and, thereafter, review petition also vide the impugned judgments. Learned Counsel for the petitioners invited my attention towards Section 224(1) and (2) under which appeals are to be filed before the Revenue Appellate Authority and Board of Revenue and submits that both the Courts below exceeded their jurisdiction while giving finding in favour of the defendants in the appeal filed by the petitioner-plaintiffs against the judgment of the S.D.O., therefore, all the orders impugned in this petition deserve to be quashed. 7. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. R.R. Nagori, assisted by Mr. 7. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. R.R. Nagori, assisted by Mr. Mohit Agrawal, submits that there is no error in the finding given by the Trial Court as well as finding given by both the Appellate Courts in holding that the defendants were in possession of the land in question and, in the so called gift-deed, there is no assertion with regard to handing over possession of the land in question to the petitioners, therefore, the judgments rendered by the Courts below do not require any interference. Learned Counsel for the defendants submits that on the factual matrix of the case it is abundantly clear that the petitioners have not proved by cogent evidence that possession was handed over to them, therefore, no interference is warranted. 8. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused the entire record of the case; more specifically, para 5 and the prayer clause of the suit filed by the petitioners, which read as under: " 5- fd oknhx.k o izfroknhx.k ds >xM+s dks fuiVkus ds fy, tkfr dh iapk;r us dksf'k'k dh ijUrq izfroknhx.k fdlh Hkh iapk;r ds Qslys dks ekuus dks rS;kj ugha gq, vkSj VkyeVy djrs jgs o vUr esa vk0ua0 208 jdck 1 ( 2 ) dks NksM+dj ckdh dh vkjkth;kr ij tqykbZ] 1977 esa uktk;t dCtk dj fy;k o 25-1-1960 ls pyh vk jgh] dCts o dk'r dh Hkwfe ls oknhx.k dks csn[ky dj fn;kA 1- fd okn&i= dh dye uEcj 1 esa of.kZr d`f"k vkjkth;rk dk oknhx.k dks [kkrsnkj d`"kd ?kksf"kr djk;k tkosaA 2- fd vykok vkjkth uEcj 208 ds ckdh vkjkth;kr dk dCtk ftudk o.kZu okn&i= dh dye uEcj 1 esa gS] dk fu"dVd :i ls izfroknhx.k ls oknhx.k dks fnyk;k tkosaA 3- fd LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk }kjk izfroknhx.k dks jksdk tkosa fd os oknhx.k dks okn&i= dh dye ua01 esa of.kZr d`f"k vkjkth;kr ls csn[ky ugha djsA 4- fd vU; tks Hkh nkn U;k;ky; mfpr le>s og fnykbZ tkosaA 5- fd okn O;; fnyk;k tkosaA " 9. In my opinion, at the time of deciding issue No. 1 by the S.D.O. apparently the pleadings were not considered in right perspective and this question was to be considered by the Appellate Courts as per Section 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955; but, upon perusal of the judgment of the Board of Revenue passed in second appeal dated 25.9.2000 I am of the opinion that the learned Board of Revenue has completely failed to decide the appeal as provided under Section 224(2) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. Therefore, though arguments have been advanced by both the parties on merit but upon assessment of the orders impugned it is necessary to remit this case to the Board of Revenue to decide the matter afresh after taking into consideration the evidence and pleadings of the case because the pleadings of the suit and evidence have not been properly considered as per Section 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. 10. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed and the order/judgment passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer dated 25.9.2000, so also, order dated 23.8.2005 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer in the review petition are hereby quashed and set aside the case is remitted to the Board of Revenue, Ajmer for deciding the matter afresh after providing opportunity of hearing within the parameters of Section 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 within a period of three months from the date of receiving certified copy of this order. The parties are directed to remain present before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer on 1.2.2014.Petition allowed. *******