Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1340 (RAJ)

KALYAN SINGH v. BOARD OF REVENUE FOR RAJASTHAN

2017-05-25

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

body2017
ORDER : 1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find no merit in the appeal. 2. As per the plaint instituted by respondent No. 3 before the court of SDM the suit land was under the khatedari of the father of respondent No.3 prior to 1955. On the death of his father on 02/03/1965, the khatedari was entered in the revenue record in his name. But since he was a minor it was recorded that the mother would be the guardian. Because he was a minor he could not till the land and his mother allowed the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants to till the same as a share cropper. Pleading that on attaining the majority he wanted to till the land himself, possession was claimed. In the written-statement filed, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, in loss and laconic pleadings, pleaded that he was inducted as a sub-tenant of the khatedar prior to promulgation of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. Though not expressly pleaded in the written-statement, the effect of the pleadings obviously would be that being a tenant prior to 1955, the khatedari rights would be his. 3. At the trial the plaintiff proved the Jamabandi Ex.P.1, P.2 and P.3 as also the mutation entry Ex.P.4. The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants proved khasra entries Exhibits P.1, P.2, P.3, P.4 and P.5. 4. Vide order dated 11/03/1986 the suit was dismissed but without returning a finding on the crucial aspect : whether the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants was a share cropper or a sub-tenant under the khatedar prior to 1955. 5. Rectification took place when the Revenue Appellate Authority set-aside the decision passed by the SDM. Further challenge before the Board of Revenue failed. The challenge before the learned Single Judge has also failed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show to us any document which shows that the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants was occupying the land a sub-tenant. The documents proved by the appellants themselves establish that the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants was a jelly. Concededly, the respondent (plaintiff) was a minor when his father died. We find that even in the documents proved by the appellants khatedari of firstly respondent No. 3's father and then his has been shown in the revenue record. 7. The documents proved by the appellants themselves establish that the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants was a jelly. Concededly, the respondent (plaintiff) was a minor when his father died. We find that even in the documents proved by the appellants khatedari of firstly respondent No. 3's father and then his has been shown in the revenue record. 7. In that view of the matter, finding returned by the learned Single Judge that the First Appellate Authority rightly corrected the mistake committed by the learned SDM which finding was upheld in the second appeal, is correct. 8. The writ appeal is dismissed.