Appellate Courts cannot reverse the findings of the Trial Court without any appeal or cross-objection filed by the defendants, and the Board of Revenue must properly consider the evidence and pleadings in a case as required under Section 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.

1. - Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners to challenge the judgment rendered by the Board of Revenue dated 23.8.2005 and order dated 25.9.2000, so also, the judgment passed by the Settlement Officer-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur dated 30.10.1997 and the judgment and decree passed by the Assistant Collector dated 10.8.1989 and further prayed that the suit of the petitioner may be decreed as prayed for in the suit.

2. As per brief facts of the case, for the agriculture land in question situated in village Sabalpura Tehsil Girwa (District Udaipur) the khatedar of the land late Lakha executed a gift-deed in favour of his sister Dhapu and brother-in-law Ganga Ram on 25.1.1960. The original khatedar Lakha died in the year 1962. Thereafter, Dhapu also expired in the year 1972.

3. After the death of Dhapu, respondent Kuka and his father forcibly and illegally entered into the possession on the basis of illegal entry in the revenue record. Late Ganga Ram and his son filed a suit under Sections 88, 183 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act in the Court of Assistant Collector (S.D.O.), Girwa against Dhanna and his son Kuka. In the suit, the defendants Dhanna and Kuka filed written-statement and admitted that Lakha executed a gift-deed on 25.1.1960 in favour of Dhapu and Ganga Ram and also admitted that late Lakha died in the year 1962 and, thereafter, Dhapu also died in the year 1977; but, denied that Dhapu was in possession of the disputed land. In the life-time of Lekha, defendant No. 1 was in possession of the said land with late Lakha and, after death of Lakha, Dhanna became owner of the property.

4. The Trial Court framed 4 issues and, for issues No. 1 and 2 the burden of proof was upon the plaintiffs and, for issues No. 3 and 4, the burden of proof was left upon the defendants. The Assistant Collector, Udaipur after hearing both the parties dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 10.8.1989 holding that the defendants have not filed any documentary evidence to prove their possession and decided issue No. 4 against the defendants and held that they are not in possession of the land in question.

5. No appeal was preferred by defendants against the finding given for issue No. 4 but the petitioner-plaintiffs filed appeal before the Settlement Officer-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority and, in appeal, application under Order 41, Rule 27 , C.P.C. was filed for taking on record certain documents in evidence but the Appellate Court decided the appeal without deciding the application holding that the defendants became khatedar of the land in question by adverse possession. The Appellate Court also reversed the finding on issues No. 1 and 4 without any appeal or cross-objection filed by the defendants. The plaintiffs preferred second appeal but the Board of Revenue, Ajmer dismissed the second appeal vide judgment dated 25.9.2000 without considering the grounds taken by the petitioners in the appeal and further, review petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 23.8.2005.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the original Court did not decide issue No. 1 in right perspective and, so also, the Revenue Appellate Authority exceeded its jurisdiction while reversing the finding given by the Trial Court against the petitioners in their appeal in favour of the defendants, so also, while reversing the finding on issue No. 4 with regard to possession, therefore, in appeal all the grounds were taken by the petitioners before the Board of Revenue but it is very strange that the Board of Revenue also decided the second appeal in very casual manner and dismissed the appeal and, thereafter, review petition also vide the impugned judgments. Learned Counsel for the petitioners invited my attention towards Section 224(1) and (2) under which appeals are to be filed before the Revenue Appellate Authority and Board of Revenue and submits that both the Courts