DR. HOOJA, M.—This is an appeal under Section 225 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (in short `the Act') against the judgment dated 13.9.06 of Revenue Appellate Authority Sawai Madhopur.

2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the appeal are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit against the deity Murti Mandir Shri Jugal Kishore Ji Maharaj (appellant-defendant) for declaration of sub-tenancy rights in the disputed lands which stand in the khatedari right of the deity. The trial Court of Sub-Divisional Officer Gangapurcity after hearing rival parties dismissed the suit by his judgment and decree dated 29.9.05 which was challenged by the respondent plaintiff through an appeal under Section 223 of the Act before Revenue Appellate Authority Sawai Madhopur who set aside the judgment and decree dated 29.9.05 of Sub-Divisional Officer Gangapurcity and remanded the case by his judgment dated 13.9.06 to the trial Court for re-hearing and re-decision. Aggrieved against the impugned remand order of Revenue Appellate Authority Sawai Madhopur the instant appeal under Section 225 of the Act is filed before us.

3. We have heard the learned counsels of both the parties.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the deity Murti Mandir Jugal Kishore Ji Maharaj is the recorded khatedar tenant of the disputed land. The respondent plaintiff is claiming sub-tenancy right in the deity land whereas there is no provision of grant of sub-tenancy right in the land of the deity which is considered to be a perpetual minor and as such legally treated to be in the personal cultivation of the deity land even if somebody else is cultivating it on behalf of the deity. The trial Court had framed sixteen issues but most of the issues are redundant and unnecessary; the only substantial issue is whether a cultivator on behalf of the deity on deity land can be declared as a sub-tenant under the Act. This crucial issue has been elaborately discussed and decided by the trial Court and there is no provision of declaring anybody as a sub-tenant on the deity land. But Revenue Appellate Authority by ignoring the legal position of the deity land and the main issues decided by the trial Court, mechanically remanded the case to Sub-Divisional Officer for giving issuewise decision. It was also contended that when all the evidence is available on record, it is the duty of Revenue Appellate Authority to decide the case finally issuewise according to the provisions of Order 41 Rule 24 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.). The learned counsel cited 2009 (1) RRT 49 : RLW 2009(1) RJ 25, 2006 RRT 156 (HC), 2007 (1) RRT 385 (H.C.) in support of his contention. It was also pleaded that any entry of a name of a cultivator in khasra girdawari does not confer any khatedari right in deity land. The learned counsel cited 2000 RRD 95, 2005 RRD 333 : RLW 2005(2) RJ 342 in support of his plea. It was further submitted that the averment of the respondent-plaintiff that he has been depositing lagan (rent) to the deity as tenant-in-chief, is totally false, as no receipt or any document of this nature are put up before the court to prove the contention. The learned counsel prayed for quashing of the judgment of Revenue Appellate Authority.

5. Opposing the contentions of the appellant, the learned counsel for the respondent argued that the suit was filed way back in 1976 and still the litigation is going on unnecessarily. The respondent-plaintiff was the `Khikmi Kashtkar' (sub-tenant) of the deity land is clear from the entries in the khasra girdawaris of Svt. 2004 and 2012 to 2015. It was further contended that `Mahant' of the temple had executed a registered deed (Ex. A.-1), stating and confirming that the respondent was the `Shikmi Kashtkar' (sub-tenant) of the deity land and was also employed in the service of the deity. It was also submitted that the trial court had framed sixteen issues but none of the issue has been discussed and decided separately. The trial Court

Click Here to Read the rest of this document