JUDGMENT : Govind Mathur, J. To question legality and validity of the judgment dated October 19, 2005, passed by learned Single Bench in SB Civil Writ Petition No.3205/1992, this appeal is preferred. By the judgment impugned learned Single Bench dismissed the petition for writ preferred by the appellant questioning correctness of the judgment dated 1.5.1992 passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer. 2. In order to understand factual matrix of the case, it shall be appropriate to give pedigree table of the parties i.e. as under:- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 3. The disputed land i.e. 42.6 bighas was in khatedari of Smt. Raj Kaur widow of Gurmukh Singh. She executed a registered sale deed on 16.5.1958 in respect of 21.6 bighas of land in favour of Ram Singh and Hajoor Singh. Remaining 21 bighas of land remained under khatedari of Smt. Raj Kaur. After death of Smt. Raj Kaur on 5.8.1961, a suit was filed by Ram Singh and Hajoor Singh for ejectment of Garib Singh and Mal Singh by claiming rights on basis of the sale deed dated 16.5.1958. An other suit was also filed to claim half share of 21 bighas of land under khatedari of Smt. Raj Kaur. The suits were contested by Garib Singh and Gurdev Kaur with assertion that they were in cultivatory possession of the whole land from a substantial period of time and further that they acquired khatedari rights over the land in light of the Gurmukh Singh Surmukh Singh Mal Singh Widow Smt. Raj Kaur (Died on 5.8.1961) Ram Singh Hajoor Singh Kartar Singh Garib Singh Gurdev Kaur provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1955'). With regard to the rights claimed on basis of the registered sale deed, said to be executed by Smt. Raj Kaur on 16.5.1958, it was pleaded that the deed was executed by the plaintiffs without paying any consideration to Smt. Raj Kaur by exercising undue influence over her, hence that is of no consequence. 4. The trial court dismissed the suit for ejectment being barred by limitation. The suit for division of holding in respect of 21 bighas of land was decreed. The preliminary decree was passed on 20.9.1983 and final decree was passed on 19.12.1983. 5. 4. The trial court dismissed the suit for ejectment being barred by limitation. The suit for division of holding in respect of 21 bighas of land was decreed. The preliminary decree was passed on 20.9.1983 and final decree was passed on 19.12.1983. 5. Being aggrieved by the decision of the trial court Shri Garib Singh and Smt. Gurdev Kaur filed two appeals giving challenge to the preliminary decree dated 20.9.1983 and final decree dated 19.12.1983. Shri Ram Singh and Hajoor Singh also preferred an appeal against dismissal of their suit for ejectment. These appeals were simultaneously heard by Revenue Appellate Authority and the same came to be decided under the judgment and decree dated 21.5.1986. The Revenue Appellate Authority accepted the appeals filed by Garib Singh and Gurdev Kaur and dismissed the appeal preferred on behalf of Ram Singh and Hajoor Singh. Shri Ram Singh and Hajoor Singh questioned validity and legality of the judgment and decree dated 21.5.1986, passed by Revenue Appellate Authority by way of filing appeals before the Board of Revenue Rajasthan Ajmer as per provisions of Section 224 of the Act of 1955. The Board of Revenue by judgment dated 1.5.1992 accepted three appeals by reversing the judgment dated 21.5.1986, passed by Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner. The Board of Revenue restored the preliminary and final decrees and also decreed the suit for ejectment. It shall be appropriate to quote the findings arrived by the Board of Revenue which are as follows:- "20. To sum up we are of the opinion that the suit for ejectment was actually under section 183 R.T. Act and was wrongly described as a suit under section 187 R.T. Act. For a suit under section 183 R.T. Act the period of limitation is 12 years. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the period of limitation did not start running from 1946 because at that time the possession of Garb Singh was admittedly permissive. The limitation started running in 1958 when the land was sold by Mst. Raj Kaur and Garib Singh filed a suit against her. The present suit for ejectment was filed in 1963 and was therefore within limitation. The defendant retained possession against the wishes of Raj Kaur and the plaintiffs and therefore they were trespassers. The plaintiff suit is therefore fit to be decreed. 21. Raj Kaur and Garib Singh filed a suit against her. The present suit for ejectment was filed in 1963 and was therefore within limitation. The defendant retained possession against the wishes of Raj Kaur and the plaintiffs and therefore they were trespassers. The plaintiff suit is therefore fit to be decreed. 21. So far as the suit for division of holding is concerned, out of 42 bighas 6 biswas of land Raj Kaur transferred 21 bighas 6 biswas to the plaintiffs by registered sale deed dated 16.5.58. The remaining 20 bighas was inherited jointly by the sons of Surmukh Singh and the sons of Garib Singh. The plaintiffs are therefore entitled to get 1/2 of the land i.e. 10 bighas. The preliminary decree passed by the trial court is therefore correct. The record does not show that the division has not been made in an equitable manner and therefore we find no reason to interfere in the final decree passed by the trial court. In our opinion the learned RAA was wrong in accepting the appeals filed by the defendants and in dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiffs. 22. In view of the above discussion all the three second appeals are hereby accepted and the judgments given by RAA Bikaner on 21.5.86 are reversed. The preliminary decree and the final decree passed by the trial court in the suit for division of holdings are restored and the suit for ejectment is decreed." 6. The legal representatives of Garib Singh and Gurdev Kaur questioned legality and validity of the judgment and decree dated 1.5.1992, passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan Ajmer by way of filing a petition for writ, that came to be dismissed by the judgment dated October 19, 2005. Learned Single Bench, after examining the entire matter in detail, concluded that the Board of Revenue proceeded within its parameters and has not acted without jurisdiction nor has committed any such error that may result into manifest injustice. 7. By the instant appeal the order passed by learned Single Bench is under consideration. 8. Learned Single Bench, after examining the entire matter in detail, concluded that the Board of Revenue proceeded within its parameters and has not acted without jurisdiction nor has committed any such error that may result into manifest injustice. 7. By the instant appeal the order passed by learned Single Bench is under consideration. 8. The first submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellants is that the Board of Revenue as well as learned Single Bench erred while holding that the suit of ejectment was preferred as per provisions of Section 183 of the Act of 1955 though a definite reference of Section 187 of the Act of 1955 is given in the plaint itself. By referring the averments contained in the plaint, it is urged that the respondent plaintiffs were claiming rights by treating themselves as tenants, hence, the suit was only as per Section 187, for which the period of limitation is only of three years. According to learned counsel the Board of Revenue as well as learned Single Bench failed to appreciate the averments and recitals contained in the plaint and that resulted into a manifest error. The other argument advanced on behalf of the appellants is that the appellants being cultivating the land since 1946 and being having absolute possession on the disputed land acquired khatedari rights as per Section 19(1)(a) of the Act of 1955. 9. Heard learned counsels appearing on behalf of rival parties. 10. The argument advanced by learned counsel that being cultivating the land in question since 1946, he acquired tenancy rights in accordance with Section 19(1)(a) of the Act of 1955, is having no merit in view of the fact that the appellants were cultivating a land let by a tenant who was widow, therefore, no khatedari rights could have been accrued to them in light of proviso (1) to Section 19(b) of the Act of 1955, according to which khatedari right shall not accrue if part of land is held from any of the persons enumerated in Section 46. A widow is a person enumerated under Section 46 of the Act of 1955. 11. The argument that the suit was filed under Section 187 of the Act of 1955 loses its foundation the moment on arriving at the conclusion that the appellants were not tenants. A widow is a person enumerated under Section 46 of the Act of 1955. 11. The argument that the suit was filed under Section 187 of the Act of 1955 loses its foundation the moment on arriving at the conclusion that the appellants were not tenants. As already stated, the appellants were not having any tenancy rights in the land in question, therefore, the suit preferred by the respondents, irrespective of the fact that a reference of Section 187 is given in the plaint, i.e. nothing but a suit under Section 183 of the Act of 1955. For a suit under Section 183, the limitation prescribed is of 12 years and, therefore, the suit concerned was well within the limitation. 12. In view of whatever stated above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment impugned. The appeal is dismissed being bereft of merit. No order to costs.