In a suit for declaration of khatedari rights under Sections 88 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiffs to establish their khatedari rights over the entire field, and the revenue courts' findings based on a proper appraisal of the evidence will not be interfered with by the High Court in certiorari jurisdiction.

1. - The petitioners by this writ petition seek to challenge the validity of the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 18-1-1977, whereby it dismissed the Second Appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 18-11-1972 passed by the Revenue: Appellate Authority. Jodhpur, which in turn affirmed the judgment and decree of the Assistant Collector, Banner, dated 30-8-1971, dismissing the petitioners* suit under Sections 88 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

2. The facts leading to the present writ petition may be briefly noticed Ramlal (since deceased) and his son Natharam instituted a suit (No.59 of 1970) against Bhika and Punja under Section 88 and 188 of the Act in the Court of Assistant Collector, Barmer. It was averred by the plaintiff-petitioners that they had been in cultivatory possession of the field known as 'Doliwaal' comprised in 'Khasara' No. 426 measuring 136 bighas' and 1 biswa' situated in village Dokha since generations, but the defendant No. 1 Bhika wanted to forcibly dispossess them from the field in dispute. It was stated that in the year 1956 Settlement 'parcha' was issued in favour of Ramlal, plaintiff No. 1, but Mst. Parwati got the 'Parcha' revised on 26-12-1956 without notice to them, whereby two third share in the field was recorded in her name in the 'parcha'. However, in the revenue record Ramlal continued to be recorded as 'khatedar' of the whole field till St. 2020. In St. 2021 the defendant Bhika got the name of Parwati entered as 'khatedar' of two-third share in the 'jamabandi' without notice to the plaintiffs The plaintiffs thereupon moved an application under Section 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Banner, on 27-11-1966. The said application was allowed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Banner, on 25-7-1970 and it was ordered that the entire 'khasara' No. 426 be entered in the 'khatedari' of Ramlal, plaintiff No. 1, and correction in 'jamabandi' be made. On these facts the plaintiffs, therefore, prayed that they may be declared as 'khatedar-tenants' of the field in question and the defendants be restrained from interfering in their cultivatory possession.

3. The defendants submitted their written statement in which the plaintiff's claim was denied and it was asserted that the two-third share in the field in question was of Mst. Parwati and the plaintiffs have only one-third share. Previously the 'parcha' in respect of whole of the field was issued in the name of Ramlal, which was subsequently got corrected on an objection petition filed by Mst. Parwati. It was denied that the plaintiffs were in possession of the entire field since the time of their ancestors. It was further averred that the Tehsildar, Barmer, divided the field by metes and bounds at the spot on 29-8 1957 and the plaintiffs were put in possession of the third share, whereas defendant No. 1 was put in possession of his two-third share and since then the parties continue to remain in possession of their respective share. it was alleged that Mat. Parwati adopted Bhika, defendant No. 1, according to custom prevalent in the community and she also executed an adoption deed on 13 6-1955 and got the same registered on 15-6-1955.

4. The plaintiffs submitted rejoinder, in which the averments made relating to the defendants' claim over the field were denied and it was also denied that Mst. Parwati adopted Bhika.

5. The learned Assistant Collector, by his judgment dated 30-8-1971 partly decreed the plaintiff's suit and declared and plaintiffs to be 'khatedar tenants' of one-third portion marked 'ka' 'kha', 'ga' & 'gha' in plan Ex. Da/3 of 'khasara' No. 496. The plaintiff's claim for the remaining two-third portion of the field was dismissed. Aggrieved with the judgment and decree of she learned Assistant Collector, the plaintiffs went in appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority' Jodhpur, which by its judgment dated 18-11-1972 upheld the judgment and