JUDGMENT : Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. In this special appeal filed under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules read with Article 225 of the Constitution of India, the appellant Ramchandra has challenged the judgment dated 2.3.2006 passed in SBCWP No. 5592/1994 and order dated 6.8.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in Review Petition No. 02311/2008 (DRJ). The learned Single Judge allowed the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5592/1994 filed by the respondents vide judgment dated 2.3.2006 and set aside the judgments dated 14.11.1994 passed by the Board of Revenue and judgment dated 18.8.1990 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner and the judgment and decree dated 30.4.1990 passed by the Assistant Collector, Sujangarh and dismissed the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff Ramchandar. The review petition filed by the appellant-petitioner was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 6.8.2008. 2. As per facts of the case, Smt. Mohini Devi wife of late Partu Ram and mother of the appellant instituted a suit No. 83/73 in the court of SDO, Ratangarh claiming declaration of Khatedari rights in dispute situated in Khasra No. 91 ad measuring 40 bighas and 4 biswas in village Chandawas on the ground that land in question was khatedari land of her father-in-law but it was mortgaged with Sh. Hema Ram (father of the petitioner-respondent). The said Sh. Hema Ram obtained Khatedari right of said land on 10.7.1959 and her father-in-law died 17 years ago and my husband Hukuma Ram died before 11 years, therefore, myself and my minor children being legal heirs of late Hukuma Ram son of Sanwala Ram are entitled to challenge the said Khatedari rights granted in favour of Hema Ram (father of respondent). The said suit filed by Mohini Devi was dismissed for want of prosecution by the SDO, Ratangarh vide order dated 24.8.1976. The appellant Ramchandra who was respondent No. 5 in the writ petition is the youngest son of smt. Mohini Devi, respondent No. 7 of the writ petition, for the cause which was subject matter of the suit filed by Smt. Mohini Devi (mother) preferred another suit before the Assistant Collector, Sujangarh in the year 1980. The appellant Ramchandra who was respondent No. 5 in the writ petition is the youngest son of smt. Mohini Devi, respondent No. 7 of the writ petition, for the cause which was subject matter of the suit filed by Smt. Mohini Devi (mother) preferred another suit before the Assistant Collector, Sujangarh in the year 1980. In the suit, the appellant-plaintiff claimed that his grand-father Hukma Ram was khatedar tenant of the land in dispute in the revenue records of Samwat Year 2011-12 and Hema Ram illegally obtained Khatedari right on 10.7.1959, therefore, on the aforesaid ground sought declaration of Khatedari rights for disputed land for himself and for his mother Smt. Mohni Devi and brother Triloka Ram and also claimed for restitution of possession over the land in dispute by evicting Hema Ram. During the pendency of the said suit pending before the Assistant Collector, Sujangarh, Hema Ram died, therefore, respondents-petitioners were substituted as legal representatives of late Hema Ram. 3. In the suit, a written statement was filed by the respondent stating therein that they are in cultivatory possession over the land as Khatedar tenant since 10.7.1959 (Samwat Year 2001) after acquiring khatedari rights as per provision of Section 15 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1955 for short) on its coming into force on 15.10.1955. A ground of principle of res-judicata and limitation was also raised in the written statement, but after framing issues, the Assistant Collector, Sujangarh decreed the suit in favour of the appellant Ramchandra vide judgment dated 30.7.1990. 4. Being aggrieved with the said judgment, the petitioners-defendants preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner, that too, was dismissed vide judgment dated 18.8.1990 while dealing the objection of the dependents of the petitioner on limitation and held that plaintiff Ramchandra at the time of granting Khatedari rights to late Sh. Hema Ram he was not born and thereafter being minor, he was not in a position to prefer the suit, therefore, preferred the suit in the year 1980 after attaining majority. The Revenue Appellate Authority held that suit was not barred by limitation. 5. Being aggrieved with the judgment of Assistant Collector, Sujangarh dated 30.4.1990 and judgment of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner dated 18.8.1990, a second appeal under Section 223 of the Act of 1955 was filed by the defendants-writ petitioners before the Board of Revenue. The Revenue Appellate Authority held that suit was not barred by limitation. 5. Being aggrieved with the judgment of Assistant Collector, Sujangarh dated 30.4.1990 and judgment of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner dated 18.8.1990, a second appeal under Section 223 of the Act of 1955 was filed by the defendants-writ petitioners before the Board of Revenue. The learned Board of Revenue by its judgment dated 8.1.1992 allowed the appeal by holding that the suit preferred by Ramchandra (respondent No. 5) was barred by limitation. The learned Board of Revenue held that limitation for filing suit for declaration is 12 years as such the limitation for filing the suit was commenced from the date the cause of action accrued to the father of the plaintiff when the land in dispute was possessed and tenancy rights were entered in favour of Hema Ram. The learned Board of Revenue held that Ramchandra was born after 10.7.1959 when Khatedari right was granted in favour of Hukma Ram in the year 1961 and filed the suit in the year 1950, therefore, the suit was barred by limitation. 6. The appellant plaintiff being aggrieved with the judgment passed by the learned Board of Revenue in second appeal dated 8.1.1992 preferred review petition under Section 229 of the Act of 1955 and that review petition was accepted by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 19.11.1993 and appeal was again listed for deciding a afresh. 7. The learned Board of Revenue heard the argument afresh in the second appeal and decided the same vide judgment dated 14.11.1994 whereby the learned Board of Revenue dismissed the second appeal filed by the defendant respondent and restored the judgment and decree given by the learned trial court which is subsequently affirmed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner by its judgment dated 18.8.1990 and held that suit was not barred by limitation. 8. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgments of the courts below the respondents Bhanwar Lal and others preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5592/1994 in which judgment impugned dated 2.3.2006 was passed by the learned Single Judge, which is under challenge in this appeal. 9. 8. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgments of the courts below the respondents Bhanwar Lal and others preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5592/1994 in which judgment impugned dated 2.3.2006 was passed by the learned Single Judge, which is under challenge in this appeal. 9. The learned Single Judge observed in the judgment that nobody put an appearances on behalf of the plaintiff respondent Ramchandra and also on behalf of the respondent No. 6 Triloka Ram and respondent No. 7 Mohini Devi, therefore, fresh notices were issued to them vide order dated 11.5.2002. The notices issued afresh too were served upon the respondents but nobody appeared on their behalf. 10. The learned Single Judge while taking into consideration entire facts of the case and considering the ground of limitation raised by the defendants-petitioners, set aside the impugned judgments passed by the Assistant Collector, Sujangarh dated 30.4.1990, Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner dated 18.8.1990 and Board of Revenue dated 14.11.1994 and allowed the writ petition on the ground that at the time of institution of suit in the year 1980 by Ramchandra, the suit was barred by limitation and held that courts below erroneously considered the same within limitation and dismissed the suit. 11. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment, first of all, a special appeal was preferred by the appellant Ramchandra. The said special appeal was registered as DBSAW No. 46/2008,but same was dismissed as withdrawn on 18.3.2008 and, thereafter, SB Civil Misc. Review Petition No. 2111/2008 (DRJ) was filed by the appellant, the learned Single Judge dismissed the review petition vide order dated 6.8.2008. In this special appeal both the judgments are under challenge. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant although raised ground that judgment impugned dated 2.3.2006 is illegal because it has been passed ex-parte without considering the fact that notices were not served upon the appellant but during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant argued this appeal on merit. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the suit was filed by the appellant Ramchandra against the respondents nos. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the suit was filed by the appellant Ramchandra against the respondents nos. 6 to 10 for possession and quashing Khatedari rights granted in favour of Hema Ram of 40 bighas and 4 biswas for the land situated in Khasra No. 91 (old) and 224 (new) before the SDO, Sujangarh on the ground that Gram Panchayat cannot grant Khatedari rights, therefore, Khatedari rights granted in favour of the respondents by the Gram Panchayat and also mutation No. 95 whereby the land in dispute was mutated in favour of the respondents was illegal and prayed that respondents nos. 7 to 10 are trespassers over the land. In the suit written statement was filed by the defendants denying the plaintiff's right on the land in question and raised ground of principle of res-judicata and limitation because for the same land, respondent No. 6 Mohini Devi mother of plaintiff Ramchandra preferred a suit and that suit was dismissed in default in the year 1976 and not restored subsequently. The learned SDO after considering the written statement framed six issues for deciding the suit and ultimately after trial and hearing both the parties, reached to the conclusion that suit filed by the appellant was not barred by limitation because earlier suit filed by the mother of the appellant, the appellant was minor and suit was dismissed for non-prosecution, therefore, the principle of res-judicata is not applicable so also, question of limitation will not arise. According to learned counsel for the appellant all the courts below gave concurrent finding upon the question of principle of res-judicata, so also, upon the limitation, therefore, it is prayed that matter may be decided on merit. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that question of limitation has wrongly been decided by the learned Single Judge because no such issue was framed for adjudication by the learned trial court. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that question of limitation has wrongly been decided by the learned Single Judge because no such issue was framed for adjudication by the learned trial court. It is also argued that issue with regard to principle of res-judicata was framed but after considering all the aspects of the matter and evidence gave finding in favour of the appellant that principle of res-judicata will not apply in this case because when Smt. Mohini Devi, mother of the appellant preferred the suit the appellant Ramchandra was minor, so also, the suit was dismissed in default, therefore argued that no right is created in favour of the respondents petitioner over the land in question because not only the Assistant Collector, Sujangarh, the Revenue Appellate Authority as well as the Board of Revenue upheld the finding given by the Assistant Collector, Sujangarh vide judgment dated 30.4.1990, therefore, it was the duty of the learned Single Judge to decide the case in proper manner or to consider the fact that there is concurrent finding of all the courts below whereby the right of the appellant Ramchandra over the land in question was determined. The learned counsel for the appellant raised question of jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat for granting Khatedari rights. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that it is a case in which concurrent findings are disturbed by the learned Single Judge ignoring the fact that no issue of limitation was framed by the SDO, Sujangarh. Lastly, argued that after marathon of litigation the appellant succeeded to get relief in accordance with law, therefore, there was no occasion for the learned Single Judge to interfere in the issue-wise finding given by the Assistant Collector, Sujangarh which is subsequently upheld by the Revenue Appellate Authority as well as Board of Revenue, therefore, it is prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and the judgment impugned may kindly be quashed. 16. In reply it is argued by learned counsel Sh. 16. In reply it is argued by learned counsel Sh. Rajeev Purohit appearing on behalf of the respondent-petitioner that there is no error in the impugned judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge whereby it is held that at the time of institution of the suit in the year 1980 by the appellant Ramchandra the suit was barred by limitation because before institution of said suit his mother Mohini Devi wife of late Partu Ram instituted a suit No. 83/73 claiming declaration and Khatedari rights in relation to the same land in dispute and said suit was dismissed for want of prosecution by the SDO, Ratangarh vide order dated 24.8.1976 and held that the day on which the suit was instituted by the mother of the respondent-petitioner Ramchandra he was minor and respondent Mohini Devi being mother preferred the suit for the same dispute which is subsequently agitated by the respondent Ramchandra. It is also pointed out that there is no strength in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that there is concurrent finding right from the court of SDO so also, there is no strength in the argument that question of limitation was not raised by the respondents in the suit filed by the appellant Ramchandra. To substantiate the said argument, it is submitted that against the judgment passed by the Assistant Collector, Sujangarh decreed the suit on 30.4.1990 an appeal was preferred before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner by the respondents, that too, was dismissed on 18.8.1990 but both these judgments were challenged by the respondents before the Board of Revenue by way of filing second appeal under Section 224 of the Act of 1955. The Board of Revenue by its judgment dated 8.1.1992 accepted the appeal filed by the respondent Bhanwar Lal and held that suit preferred by Ramchandra (appellant) was barred by limitation. The learned Board of Revenue held that limitation for filing suit for declaration is 12 years and this question has been ignored by the learned trial court while entertaining the suit. 17. The second appeal filed by the respondent Bhanwar Lal before the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer was allowed vide order dated 8.1.1992 but the review petition was filed under Section 229 of the Act of 1955. 17. The second appeal filed by the respondent Bhanwar Lal before the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer was allowed vide order dated 8.1.1992 but the review petition was filed under Section 229 of the Act of 1955. The said review petition was accepted by an order dated 19.1.1993 and the second appeal was again placed for hearing afresh by the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue again heard the second appeal and vide judgment dated 14.11.1994 dismissed the second appeal and maintained the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court which is subsequently affirmed by the Revenue Appellate Authority vide judgment dated 18.8.1990. 18. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that a grave error was committed by the Board of Revenue while accepting the review petition because second appeal preferred by the respondents was heard by two members namely Sh. SB Shrivastava and Sh. Satyanarayan Singh and said second appeal No. Appeal/Decree/279/90/Churu was allowed by the said bench vide judgment dated 8.1.1992 but it is very strange that the review petition preferred by the appellant was heard by different bench comprising of two members namely, Sh. KN Bhargwa and Sh. SP Gupta and said review petition was allowed by the said Division Bench of Board of Revenue and matter was again placed before the bench of two members namely Sh. SB Shrivastava and Sh. RN Meena because out of two members, who decided the appeal filed by the respondent vide judgment dated 8.1.1992,one member Sh. Satyanarayan Singh was superannuated. 19. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that although the learned Single Judge did not enter in the said question of deciding the appeal by the Board of Revenue upon the question of limitation but legal question can be raised at any stage. Learned counsel for the respondent further argued that late Hema Ram became Khatedar tenant of the land in dispute on 10.7.1959, therefore, obviously, cause of action was arose on the said day and on that day grand-father as well as father of the appellant Ramchandra were alive, but they did not challenge the Khatedari rights given to the respondents, therefore, question of limitation for filing suit commenced against them which is ultimately expired after a period of 12 years. 20. 20. It is also argued that respondent appellant was born in the year 1961 and preferred the suit in the year 1980 which is after the lapse of the period of limitation for instituting the suit, but the learned courts below erred to hold that the cause of action remained in currency for plaintiff appellant to prefer the suit till he attained the majority because he was minor, but this ground also cannot be accepted for the reason that Mohini Devi mother of appellant plaintiff Ramchandra preferred the suit in the year 1973 for the same cause of action but the said suit stood rejected for want of prosecution in the year 1976, therefore, after rejection of the suit there was no right accrued to the appellant plaintiff Ramchandra to again prefer the suit for the same land in question, therefore, after considering legal issue of limitation learned Single Judge held that suit instituted by the appellant plaintiff in the year 1980 was barred by limitation, therefore, no interference is called for in this appeal. 21. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, following admitted facts emerges for consideration: A. As per admitted facts, the Khatedari rights were accrued to the respondents for the land in dispute measuring 40 bighas and 4 biswas situated in Khasra No. 224 (old No. 911) at village Chandwas on 10.7.1959. B. On 10.7.1959, not only the grand-father Hukma Ram of the appellant Ramchandra but his father Partu Ram were alive and appellant plaintiff Ramchandra was borne in the year 1961. C. There is no dispute that in the year 1973 the respondent No. 7 Mohini Devi, mother of the appellant instituted suit No. 83/73 for the same dispute in the court of SDO, Ratangarh. At that time, the appellant was minor and the said suit preferred by Mohini Devi mother of the appellant plaintiff Ramchandra was rejected for want of prosecution in the year 1976 and after rejection of the suit, the plaintiff appellant Ramchandra instituted the suit in the year 1980. D. There is no dispute that the plaintiff appellant preferred the suit for declaration and dispossession against the respondent and for the same cause of action, respondent No. 7 Mohini Devi, mother of the plaintiff appellant preferred suit No. 83/73 in the court of SDO, Ratangarh but that suit was dismissed. 22. D. There is no dispute that the plaintiff appellant preferred the suit for declaration and dispossession against the respondent and for the same cause of action, respondent No. 7 Mohini Devi, mother of the plaintiff appellant preferred suit No. 83/73 in the court of SDO, Ratangarh but that suit was dismissed. 22. Now to consider the finding of the learned Single Judge for the question of limitation we have perused the judgment of the Assistant Collector passed in suit No. 299/1985 dated 30.4.1990 passed in favour of appellant Ramchandra in which specific observations were made by the learned trial court that some serious objections were raised by the defendants with regard to the question of res-judicata as well as limitation. The said objections were incorporated at page No. 5 of the judgment by the learned trial court, which reads as under:- ^^fo'ks"k vkifRr;ka izfroknhx.k dh rjQ ls ;g mBk;h x;h gS fd ,d nkok ua0 83 lu~ 1973 vuokuh eksguh cuke gsekjke vkfn pyk Fkk tks fnuakd 24-08-1976 dks blh U;k;ky; }kjk [kkfjt dj fn;k x;k vr% buds f[kykQ izk0 U;k; ykxw gksrk gS vr% dkuwuu ;g nkok ugha py ldrk vkSj [kkfjt fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA ge izfroknhx.k ds oknxr [ksr la0 2001 esa Hkw0iw0 txhnkj ls fy;k Fkk] igys dk gesa irk ugha exj la0 2001 esa gqDekjke dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugh FkkA lEor 2003 esa gqDekjke dk nsgkUr gks x;k] ml oDr mlds rhu yM+ds gjpan] ijrq vkSj ?khlk ekStwn Fks ftUgksuas dHkh dksbZ vf/kdkjh bl [ksr ij ugha crk;k Lo0 gqDekjke ds nks yM+ds gjpan vkSj ?khlk vkt Hkh ekStwn gS ftudks bl nkos esa i{kdkj ugha cuk;k x;k] vr% i{kdkjksa ds vlis'ku ds n`f"V ls Hkh nkok nwf"kr gS ,oa vof/k ls ckgj gS vkSj [kkfjt djus ;ksX; gSA** 23. Upon above pleadings issue No. 6 was framed upon aforesaid objections which reads as under: ^^6 & D;k gqDekjke dk lEor 2003 esa nsgkar gks x;k vkSj mlds okfjlku gjpan] ijrq o ?khlk ekStwn mUgksaus u rks dksbZ vf/kdkj [ksr ij trk;k vkSj uk dksbZ mudk vf/kdkj [ksr ij Fkk vkSj gjpan o ?khlk ekStwn gS mudks i{kdkj cuk,A** 24. Upon above pleadings issue No. 6 was framed upon aforesaid objections which reads as under: ^^6 & D;k gqDekjke dk lEor 2003 esa nsgkar gks x;k vkSj mlds okfjlku gjpan] ijrq o ?khlk ekStwn mUgksaus u rks dksbZ vf/kdkj [ksr ij trk;k vkSj uk dksbZ mudk vf/kdkj [ksr ij Fkk vkSj gjpan o ?khlk ekStwn gS mudks i{kdkj cuk,A** 24. But it is very strange that while considering the entire evidence and objection of limitation, following adjudication was made for issue No. 6 by the Assistant Collector, which reads as under: ^^rudh ua0 6 & ;g rudh fl) djuk ftEes izfroknh gSA izfroknh dk dguk gS fd gqDekjke dk nsgkar lEor 2003 esa gh gks x;k Fkk] mlds okfjlku gjpan] ijrq o ?khlk ml le; ekStwn Fks u rks mUgksaus vf/kdkj [ksr ij trk;k vkSj u mldk vf/kdkj Fkk vkSj gjpan o ?khlk ekStwn gS ftudks i{kdkj ugha cuk;k x;kA fygktk nkok pyus okyk ugha gSA viuh ckr dks fl) djus ds fy, izfroknh us dksbZ egRoiw.kZ lk{; izLrqr ugha fd;k] ftlls fl) gks lds fd gqDekjke dk nsgkar 2003 esa gks x;k FkkA lEor 2003 ls 13-07-1959 rd ;kfu 2016 rd gqDekjke dk gh uke ys.M+ fjdkWM+Z esa ntZ pyk vk jgk gSA e`R;q ds 13 o"kZ ckn rd fdlh Hkh gkyr esa gqDekjke dk uke ys.M+ fjdkWMZ+ esa ugha vk ldrk A blls ;g fl) gksrk gksrk gS fd gqDekjke dh e`R;q yxHkx 2023 esa gq;hA tgka rd gjpan o ?khlk dks i{kdkj u cukus dk ekeyk gS] oknh ds i{k esa okn fuf.kZr gksus ls mudk fookfnr [ksr ij vf/kdkj lekIr ugh gksrk] vyx okn nk;j dj os Hkh vius vf/kdkj izkIr dj ldrs gSA fygktk ;g rudh fo:) izfroknh ,oa oknh fuf.kZr dh tkrh gSA** 25. Upon consideration of above finding in the judgment impugned and judgment of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner and Board of Revenue, we are of the opinion that question of limitation raised by the respondent in the written statement was one of the important issue, but it has not been decided properly either by the Assistant Collector, Sujangarh or by Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner or by the Board of Revenue. Therefore, the learned Single Judge entered in this legal issue of limitation and considered the entire evidence of the case and held that suit instituted by the appellant in the year 1980 was barred by limitation for the reason that Khatedari rights were given to Hema Ram in the year 1959 prior to birth of plaintiff appellant Ramchandra in the year 1961. Further, held that the day on which Khatedari rights were accrued in favour of the respondents, the grand-father Hukma Ram and father Partu Ram of the plaintiff appellant Ramchandra were alive, but did not raise any objection. Further, observed in the judgment that in the year 1973, the mother of the appellant Ramchandra preferred a suit for the same land in question but that suit was dismissed in the year 1976 for non-prosecution and not restored. Therefore, we are of the opinion that no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in holding that suit instituted by the appellant Ramchandra in the year 1980 was barred by limitation and to quash the impugned judgments dated 14.11.1994 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, the judgment dated 18.8.1990 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner and the judgment and decree dated 30.4.1990 passed by the Assistant Collector, Sujangarh in suit No. 299/1985. 26. Consequently, there is no force in this special appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.