JUDGMENT 1. - This petition is directed against order dated 11.10.13 of the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, whereby the second appeal preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 6.3.07 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA), Sriganganagar, upholding the judgment and order dated 7.8.06 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Sriganganagar in Revenue Suit No.3/2000, decreeing the suit preferred by the fifth respondent herein under Section 88, 89 & 183 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ( for short "the Act"), has been dismissed. 2. The relevant facts are that Malan Singh s/o Jora Singh, was having agriculture land ad measuring 129.5 bighas in chak 25F, 28F and 33F. Out of the said land, Malan Singh by way of tamaliknama i.e. a gift deed dated 19.3.63 transferred 25 bighas land comprising murabba no.13 in chak 28F in favour of the plaintiff- Smt. Jasvindra Kaur w/o Nakshatra Singh, the fifth respondent herein and accordingly, the land was mutated in her name in the revenue record. Later, the sons of Malan Singh namely; Nakshatra Singh, Nandan Singh and Kala Singh filed a suit for partition against Malan Singh in respect of 129 bighas land held by him as aforesaid. The suit was decreed in terms of compromise arrived at between the parties vide judgment and decree dated 18.11.66. That apart, it is alleged that a relinquishment deed was also executed by the fifth respondent relinquishing her right over 25 bighas land transferred in her name by Malan Singh by way of tamaliknama. 3. The fifth respondent-Smt. Jasvindra Kaur filed a suit for declaration and ejectment against Malan Singh and others, the petitioners and the respondents no.6 to 11 herein, in respect of the disputed land claiming herself to be khatedar tenant thereof. The fifth respondent claimed that by virtue of tamaliknama dated 19.3.63, she had become khatedar tenant of the land in question and the same was mutated in her name in the revenue record and therefore, the partition decree obtained by the defendants without impleading her as party defendant in the suit is null & void and not binding upon her. The fifth respondent claimed that relinquishment deed was got executed by keeping her in dark and on the basis of the relinquishment deed, no right is created in favour of the defendants inasmuch as, they were not co-sharers in the land. 4. The fifth respondent claimed that relinquishment deed was got executed by keeping her in dark and on the basis of the relinquishment deed, no right is created in favour of the defendants inasmuch as, they were not co-sharers in the land. 4. The suit was contested by the defendants inter alia the petitioners herein, taking the stand that the land having been partitioned by way of compromise decree, no right is created in favour of the plaintiff on the strength of tamaliknama. It was averred that the plaintiff had knowledge of the suits filed being No.20/66 and 25/66 inasmuch as, her husband-Nakshatra Singh was party defendant therein. That apart, it was contended that earlier plaintiff-Jasvindra Kaur had filed suit No.28/72 against Malan Singh, which was got dismissed as withdrawn and therefore, the fresh suit filed is barred by principle of res judicata. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the SDO framed the issues and parties led their evidence. After due consideration of the evidence on record, the SDO arrived at the finding that on the strength of tamaliknama which is a gift deed, the plaintiff had acquired khatedari rights over the land in question and therefore, the same could not have been subject matter of partition in the suit preferred by the sons of Malan Singh. The court arrived at the finding that in the suit for partition filed, the plaintiff-Jasvindra Kaur was not impleaded as party and therefore, the decree passed is not binding upon her. Regarding the suit earlier filed by the plaintiff-Jasvindra Kaur against Malan Singh, the court arrived at the finding that the same was a suit for injunction and since Malan Singh stopped interfering with the use and occupation of the plaintiff-Jasvindra Kaur over the land in question, the same was got dismissed in terms of the compromise and therefore, the principle of res judicata, is not attracted in the matter. Accordingly, the suit preferred by the plaintiff-Jasvindra Kaur, the fifth respondent herein, was decreed as prayed for. Aggrieved thereby, an appeal preferred by the petitioners herein, stood dismissed by the RAA, Sriganganagar vide judgment dated 6.3.07. The second appeal preferred by the petitioners herein, aggrieved by the order passed by the RAA as aforesaid also stands dismissed by the Board of Revenue by the order impugned. Hence, this petition. 6. Aggrieved thereby, an appeal preferred by the petitioners herein, stood dismissed by the RAA, Sriganganagar vide judgment dated 6.3.07. The second appeal preferred by the petitioners herein, aggrieved by the order passed by the RAA as aforesaid also stands dismissed by the Board of Revenue by the order impugned. Hence, this petition. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that Nakshatra Singh, the husband of Smt. Jasvindra Kaur, was party to the suit for partition preferred by Kala Singh and others and therefore, the factum of the partition decree passed by the court of competent jurisdiction was well within knowledge of plaintiff-Smt. Jasvindra Kaur and therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the decree passed can be said to be void and not enforceable against her. Learned counsel submitted that admittedly earlier plaintiff-Smt. Jasvindra Kaur had filed a suit in respect of the land in question and the same was withdrawn and therefore, the fresh suit filed was barred by principle of res judicata. Learned counsel submitted that Dastbardari executed by plaintiff-Jasvindra Kaur, which was duly registered, could not have been declared null and void by the revenue court and therefore, the plaintiff-Jasvindra Kaur having relinquished her right in the disputed land by way of deed of Dastbardari, the suit for declaration and ejectment preferred by her was liable to be dismissed on this count alone. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record. 8. Indisputably, Malan Singh, the father-in-law of the plaintiff-Jasvindra Kaur was khatedar tenant of the disputed land. It is not in dispute that the land was transferred by Shri Malan Singh by way of tamaliknama i.e. a gift deed, in favour of the plaintiff-Smt. Jasvindra Kaur and accordingly, she acquired the khatedari rights over the land in question and the same was mutated in her name in the revenue record. Obviously, the land having been transferred in favour of the plaintiff-Smt. Jasvindra Kaur, Shri Malan Singh had lost his right, title and interest in the land in question and thus, the same could not have been included for the purpose of partition between Malan Singh and his sons. Obviously, the land having been transferred in favour of the plaintiff-Smt. Jasvindra Kaur, Shri Malan Singh had lost his right, title and interest in the land in question and thus, the same could not have been included for the purpose of partition between Malan Singh and his sons. The judgment and decree obtained by inter alia the petitioners herein without impleading plaintiff-Jasvindra Kaur as party to the partition suit, qua the land held by her on the strength of tamaliknama executed in her favour, is null and void and cannot be enforced against her, merely because, her husband Nakshatra Singh was party to the suit. It has come on record that the suit preferred by the plaintiff-Jasvindra Kaur against Shri Malan Singh, was only a suit for injunction, which was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the compromise arrived at inasmuch as, Malan Singh stopped interfering with plaintiff's use and occupation of the plaintiff over the land in question and thus, the fresh suit filed by the plaintiff-Jasvindra Kaur for declaration and ejectment, keeping in view, the partition decree obtained by inter alia the petitioners herein, without impleading her as party to the suit, cannot be said to be barred by principle of res judicata. Inter alia the petitioners herein were not co-sharers in the land in question and therefore, the khatedari rights held by the plaintiff-Jasvindra Kaur therein, could not have been transferred by way of relinquishment deed and thus, the concurrent findings arrived at by the courts below in this regard also cannot be faulted with. 9. In view of the discussion above, in the considered opinion of this court, the judgment and decree passed by the SDO, affirmed by the RAA and the Board of Revenue, does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed in limine. *******