JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order of Additional Collector, Revenue Appellate Authority and Board of Revenue. All the three orders are against the petitioners and having concurrent finding of facts. It was on a suit preferred by the respondents to seek declaration under Section 19 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (in short "Act, 1955"). 2. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners were khatedar of the land and their names exist in the revenue record. The respondents filed a suit claiming themselves to be khatedar and possession of the land in dispute. It was nowhere mentioned that they are shikmi tenant in the land thus entitled to the benefit under the Act, 1955. The courts below failed to consider that in absence of claim to cover it under Section 19 of the Act, 1955, the declaration could not have been made. The plea taken by the petitioners was even in contradiction inasmuch as they were claiming rights as shikmi tenant and at the same time, claim was made based on permissive possession. A claim for adverse possession is in contrast to the declaration sought under Section 19 by considering themselves to be shikmi tenant. The aforesaid was also ignored by the court below. 3. Lastly, it is contended that no evidence was led by the respondents to show as to how they became shikmi tenant. In absence of it, the court should have taken cognizance of the revenue record where names of petitioners exist. It is apart from the fact that even as per statement of the respondents, they came in the possession somewhere in the year 1961, whereas to seek benefit under Section 19 of the Act, 1955, the possession should have been prior to the year 1955. 4. Learned counsel for respondents, on the other hand, submits that while filing suit, facts regarding possession as well as their status was mentioned though it was referred to be khatedar but then clarified in reference to record where the respondents were mentioned as "shikmi" tenant for last 24 years. The pleading was supported by the documents where the respondents were recorded as shikmi tenant. Thus it is not correct to state that without pleading or showing status as shikmi tenant, the declaration was made in favour of the respondents. The pleading was supported by the documents where the respondents were recorded as shikmi tenant. Thus it is not correct to state that without pleading or showing status as shikmi tenant, the declaration was made in favour of the respondents. He further states that claim was maintainable under Section 19 of the Act, 1955 as the respondents were sub-tennat and thereby declaration made by the first revenue court was proper and upheld by the two appellate revenue courts with concurrent finding of facts. 5. This court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India would be having limited jurisdiction. In view of the above, the interference in the impugned order may not be caused. It is submitted that based on the possession, if the petitioners are having more than one right than it can be claimed in alternative and cannot be taken to be in contradiction. The respondents having possession of land for last 24 years and that too permissive possession, was entitled to seek benefit of adverse possession thus alternative prayer was not in contradiction to the prayer in the plaint. It is also contended that possession of the land as sub-tenant, tenant, etc. should have been on or before 31.12.1969. The respondents produced the documents to show possession since 1961 i.e. much prior to crucial date given under the Act, 1955. In view of the above, declaration made in favour of the respondents was after taking proper interpretation of law. 6. It is also stated that the petitioners failed to prove their case as no evidence was led to demolish the case of the respondents. The provisions of the Act, 1955 permit khatedari rights in favour of those, who were in possession of the land in the capacity of tenant or subtenant, etc. The respondents being sub-tenant were rightly declared to be khatedar by operation of law. 7. I have considered the rival submissions made by the parties and perused the record. 8. I find that all the three orders of revenue courts are having concurrent finding of facts. In view of the above, this court is having limited jurisdiction to cause interference so far finding of facts is concerned. 7. I have considered the rival submissions made by the parties and perused the record. 8. I find that all the three orders of revenue courts are having concurrent finding of facts. In view of the above, this court is having limited jurisdiction to cause interference so far finding of facts is concerned. It is moreso when the suit was not contested by the petitioner-defendants by submitting documentary or oral evidence to prove their case to the extent, facts were required to be proved by the petitioner-defendants, thus conclusions were rightly recorded adverse to the petitioners and in favour of plaintiff-respondents. 9. The question now comes as to whether respondent-plaintiffs could prove their case or not. The perusal of facts shows that khatedari rights were claimed or declaration was sought showing themselves to be shikmi tenant for last 24 years. The claim was also based on possession. The aforesaid claim cannot be said to be in conflict. The petitioners' case was that their names exist in the revenue record thus should have been taken cognizance by the court below but petitioners failed to produce any evidence whatsoever to prove their case. Hence, pleading and the evidence produced by the respondents were considered and finding that evidence was sufficient to prove their status as shikmi tenant, declaration was rightly made. The shikmi tenant is not considered to be a trespasser as held by this court in the case of Chhitar v. Bajiruddin & Ors., reported in 1993 RRD (40) 246 . Therein, the shikmi tenant was found entitled to seek declaration of his khatedari rights as per Section 19 (AA) of the Act, 1955. 10. The petitioners' other argument is regarding Tenancy Act which came in the year 1955. The possession of the land in question was shown by the respondents from the year 1961 thus declaration of rights under Section 19 of the Act, 1955 was not tenable as possession was required in the year 1955. The argument aforesaid is without considering the amendments made from time to time. In the last amendment, khatedari rights based on possession from the year 1969 were recognized. In view of the above, the argument raised aforesaid cannot be accepted. 11. It was also found that khatedari rights were claimed with alternative pleas. The alternative pleas can be raised by a party though it should not be in contradiction. In the last amendment, khatedari rights based on possession from the year 1969 were recognized. In view of the above, the argument raised aforesaid cannot be accepted. 11. It was also found that khatedari rights were claimed with alternative pleas. The alternative pleas can be raised by a party though it should not be in contradiction. Accordingly, the claim made by the respondents for declaration of khatedar of the land was rightly allowed in their favour as pleas were not in conflict. 12. The question of res judicata has also been decided by the court below. The earlier suit was dismissed in default and had not been decided on merit so as to apply principle of res judicata. 13. In view of the discussion made above and keeping in mind that there exist concurrent findings of three revenue courts, the jurisdiction of this court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India would be quite limited and considering no error in the impugned orders, this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. The stay application is also dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******