Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This special appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 15.3.2002 whereby the writ petition filed by the Appellants herein was dismissed. The appellants original writ petitioners in the writ petition, had challenged the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 3.5.1989 by which the Board reversed the judgment and decree dated 20.10.1981 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota and that of the S.D.O. dated 30.4.1979.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that the predecessor-in-title of the respondents herein, namely. Anandilal, filed a revenue suit in the year 1973 for partition and division of holding against the predecessor-in-title of the appellants namely, Kanhaiyalal, claiming that he was co-sharer in the lands comprising of Khasra No. 124 measuring 35 bigha and 3 biswa situated in village Talaiwala and Khasra No. 134 measuring 5 biswa gair mumkin chahi, situated in village Hanotiya, Tehsil Ladpura, and prayed that half of the said land be ordered to be recorded in his name. According to the plaintiff-respondent cause of action for filing of the revenue suit arose in 1970 when the defendant started making obstructions in the way of the plaintiff for cultivation of the agricultural land. It may be noted that the plaintiff Anandilal and defendant Kanhaiyalal were real brothers and the plaintiff claimed that both had inherited the land from their father; this being ancestral land, he was entitled to half the share thereof. The defendant contested the suit and set up a plea that as far as the land of Khasra No. 134 is concerned, he had purchased the said land from Tehsil Ladpura for Rs. 31/- and `sanad' of which was granted by Mahakama Khas, Kota on 5.1.1945. The land measuring 5 biswa was always in the sole khatedari of the defendant. As far as the land of Khasra No. 124 measuring 35 bigha 3 biswa is concerned, it was asserted by the defendant that the plaintiff had relinquished his share in the said land in favour of the defendant on 15.7.1949 and a document in writing was executed as a proof thereof. It was also asserted by the defendant that he was continuously in possession of the entire land and that even otherwise by adverse possession against the defendant, he became the absolute owner of the said land. It was therefore prayed that the revenue suit be dismissed.

3. The S.D.O. dismissed the revenue suit filed by the plaintiff respondent and his appeal filed there against was also dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. It was thereupon that the plaintiff-respondent filed in an appeal before the Board of Revenue, which, reversed the above referred to judgments and decreed the revenue suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent, vide its judgment dated 3.5.1989. The defendant-appellants before this Court by filing writ petition challenged the said judgment of the Board of Revenue. The learned Single Judge, by his order dated 15.3.2002, however, dismissed the writ petition. Hence this special appeal before the Division Bench.

4. Shri R.K. Goyal, learned counsel for appellants has argued that mere fact that the land of disputed Khasras was throughout recorded in the joint khatedari of the plaintiff and defendant, could not be accepted as the conclusive proof of the joint title of two brothers. The land of Khasra No. 134 was purchased in auction by the defendant Kanhaiyalal from the then Government of Kota on 5.1.1945 and on that basis issued `sanad' in his name. So far as land of Khasra No. 124 is concerned, the plaintiff had relinquished his title over the said land and executed a document as a proof thereof as far back as in 1949, which was produced in evidence as Exhibit D-1. The plaintiff himself, in his statement, admitted this document as correct. The learned counsel, in this behalf, referred to the statement of Anandilal and also submitted that even if there is no reference therein of Khasra number or measurement of the land, the plaintiff Anandilal having admitted

Click Here to Read the rest of this document