1. - In challenge is the judgment and order dated 16.12.2013 passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.6488/2008.

2. We have heard Mr.K.K.Mehrishi, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Timan Singh for the appellants and Mr.Devendra Raghav, learned for the respondents.

3. The recorded facts in short are that the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants herein i.e.Karan Singh had instituted a suit in the Court of Sub Divisional Officer, Bhawani Mandi under Sections 88/188 and 91 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the Act') against Kalu Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents No.4.1 to 4.9 and another seeking a decree for declaration of his title therein as khatedar of land measuring 1 bigha & 14 biswa included in khasra No.1178 situated in Village Dudhaliya, Tehsil Gangdhar, District Jhalawar and also for perpetual injunction against the defendants. The claim was based on an agreement of sale dated 14.2.1978 between Karan Singh and Kalu Singh, who was the recorded khatedar thereof. It was pleaded that following such agreement, the possession of the land involved was formally delivered to the plaintiff, and that, since then he had been continuing as khatedar tenant in respect thereof. It was pleaded as well that before execution of the agreement, the plaintiff had been cultivating the land since five years prior thereto. Admittedly however, no sale deed between the parties was registered involving the said land thereafter. Alleging that the defendant Kalu Singh was instead contemplating to sell the land to others to his detriment, Karan Singh instituted the suit seeking the above reliefs. On receiving the summons, the defendant Kalu Singh entered appearance and filed his written statement denying these averments made in the plaint. The execution of the agreement of sale dated 14.2.1978 as well as receipt of an amount of Rs. 12,500/- in connection with transaction, was denied. That the suit land had been handed over to the plaintiff Kalu Singh was denied as well. It was alleged that the document dated 14.2.1978 was a forged one. The learned Sub Divisional Officer, Bhawani Mandi, after a full contest, by his judgment and order dated 9.2.1995, decreed the suit and declared the plaintiff Karan Singh to be the khatedar of the suit land and ordered that his name be entered in the revenue records. A decree of perpetual injunction was also granted restraining the defendant Kalu Singh from interfering with his possession.

4. Being aggrieved by this adjudication, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents No.4.1 to 4.9 herein preferred an appeal being appeal No.32/98 before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota. By order dated 21.3.1998, the said forum interfered with the decree. The appellants, having unsuccessfully appealed against the same before the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer, have turned to this Court seeking to invoke its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. By the judgment and ordered assailed herein, their challenge has been negated.

6. Mr.Mehrishi has urged that though in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the suit filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants for declaration of his status as khatedar tenant of the land is untenable, his prayer for perpetual injunction even as a possessor thereof, and more particularly, in the background of the agreement of sale, is sustainable in terms of Section 92A of the Act. Referring to the definition of "land" provided in Section 5(24) of the Act, the learned senior counsel has insisted that as the same let or held for agricultural purposes is legislatively intended to be within the purview of the enactment, it signifies that any person holding the land for agricultural purposes simpliciter is entitled to the benefit of protection of the provisions thereof. In that view of the matter, Mr.Mehrishi has urged that the suit for permanent injunction of the predecessor-in-interest of the