A plaintiff in a revenue suit under Section 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act must prove that he is a Khetedar or a tenant of any other kind recognized under the Act to be entitled to an injunction against interference with his possession of the suit agricultural land.

1. - Madhpuri a successful plaintiff in a revenue suit filed this writ application, with the prayer that a writ of certiorari be issued against the judgment of Baard of Revenue dated 28-2-74 and 16-3-73 may also be quashed by which the decree of the two lower courts was reversed.

2. The revenue suit under Section 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was passed on the ground that petitioner is a Khetedar and the defendants are dying to interfere with his possession and, therefore, they must be restrained from interfering with his possession on the suit agricultural land. The basis of the right of Khatedari was allowed before sale by respondents to Kaloopuri, father of the plaintiff and delivery of possession of this agricultural land on Jeth sud 11 Smt. 2007 for Rs. 500 CO. Consequently. mutation proceedings and the entry in the mutation in favour of the plaintiff's father dated 22-12-56 was relied upon. There was further mutation in favour of the plaintiff himself after the death of father on 12th June, 1961.

3. The suit was decreed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ghittorgarh and Revenue Appellate Authority but was dismissed by the Board of Revenue as entioned above.

4. The principal reason given by the Board of Revenue is that the suit was based on khatedari rights and the plaintiff claims title through a sale deed, which was unregistered and never came on the record and that being so, it could not pass any valid title in favour of the plaintiff or his father.

5. Before us, the finding of the Board of Revenue on the ground that even though the sale may be defective since he has got possession of the land and the mutation has been done in his favour, he should be deemed to be a khatedar and in any case a tenant in the eyes of law. It was submitted that a tenant is of several kinds and, therefore, in the alternative even if he is not Khatedar, he could be treated as an other tenant under Section 188 of the Act. Section 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act is as under:

"Section 188 Injunction against wrongful ejectment:

(1) Any tenant whose right to or enjoyment of the whole or a part of his holding is invaded or threatered to be invaded by his landlord or any other person may bring a suit for the grant of perpetual injunction.

(2) The court may after making the necessary enquiry grant and perpetual injunction in the following case, namely:

(a) if there exists no standard for ascertaining the actual damage caused or likely to be caused by the invasion;

(b) if the invasion is such that pecuniary compensation does not afford adequate relief;

(c) where it is probable that pecuniary compensation cannot be got for the invasion;

(d) where the injunction is necessary to prevent multiplicity of proceedings.

6. Tenant has been defined under Section 5(43) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, which reads as under:

"Section. 5(43) "Tenant" shall mean the person by whom rent is, or, but for a contract, express cr implied, would be, payable and except when the contrary intention appears, shall include:-

(a) in the Abu area, a permanent tenant or a protected tenant,

(b) in the Ajmer area, an ex-proprietary tenant or an occupancy tenant or a hereditary tenant or a non-occupancy tenant a Bhooswami or a Kashtkar,

(c) in the Sunel area, an ex-proprietary tenant or a pakka tenant tenant or an ordinary tenant,

(d) a co-tenant,

(e) a grove-holder,

(f) a village servant,

(ff) a tenant holding from a land owner,

(g) a tenant of khudkasht,

(h) a mortgagee of tenancy rights,

(i) a sub-tenant,

but shall not include a grantee at a favourable rate of rent or an ijaradar or a thekadar or a trespasser.

7. Mr. Gupta referred to a judgment of the Board of Revenue reported in Brij Lal v. Mathura, 1956 RRD 259 . This was a case on the correctness of the mutation proceedings by a revenue officer. The Revenue Board was of the view that even if there is no registered sale deed if the possession had changed hands and the mutation has been done in the presence of a vendor, then he cannot be allowed