1. - This writ petition is directed against the judgment of the Board of Revenue ('Board') dated 11.1.1996, whereby on reference made to the 3rd member on account of disagreement between two members vide order dated 20.11.1993, the appeal filed by the petitioners against the judgment dated 18.5.1985 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority ('RAA') has been dismissed.

2. The present litigation has a chequered history, the dispute pertains to land comprised in Khasara No.767 (New No.1351) situated at Village Nathdwara which stood in khatedari of one Fateh Lal S/o Ekling Das; Lehar Bai W/o Fateh Lal lived separately with her son Manohar Lal since 1958; it is claimed that on 26.12.1958, Fateh Lal executed a document (Tehrir) giving land in dispute to Lehar Bai for her maintenance; on 10.8.1959, Fateh Lal filed a suit under Section 180 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ('the Act') against his son Manohar Lal & Radha Kishan, Liladhar and one Smt. Chunni Bai W/o Radha Kishan in the Court of SDO, Udaipur on the allegation that he was the owner of the land in dispute and the defendants were interfering with his cultivation; the defendants resisted the suit inter-alia on the ground that the land in dispute was given to Smt. Lehar Bai in the year 1958 and defendants were cultivating the land on her behalf; on 25.10.1960, the trial court dismissed the suit filed by Fateh Lal, though Lehar Bai was not a party to the suit, although an application seeking her impleadment was filed and was pending.

3. Feeling aggrieved, Fateh Lal filed appeal; the RAA by its judgment dated 6.2.1962 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back after impleading Lehar Bai as party; the order dated 6.2.1962 was upheld by the Board by its judgment dated 14.9.1962.

4. The suit filed by Fateh Lal was decreed by the SDO, Udaipur on 29.4.1967 and the appeal filed by Lehar Bai and Manohar Lal was dismissed by RAA by its judgment dated 24.5.1967. The Board, however, set-aside the judgments of SDO, Udaipur and RAA and remanded the matter back to the SDO by its judgment dated 3.1.1968 directing that a fresh judgment be delivered after hearing the parties as the judgments of both the courts below contained serious errors of law and facts. It may be noticed that during the proceedings before various courts, the land in dispute remained in the possession of receiver.

5. In the meanwhile, on 24.6.1967, Fateh Lal transferred the land in dispute to Sohan Lal S/o Magan Lal. The said Sohan Lal filed application for being impleaded as party to the suit on 21.8.1969 and 18.11.1969; during the pendency of the suit on 22.1.1970, Fateh Lal - plaintiff filed an application praying for decreeing the suit in favour of Lehar Bai and prayed that possession be handed-over to her by removing the receiver and the income received by the receiver be delivered to Lehar Bai and prayed that qua the other defendants he was withdrawing the suit. The SDO, Udaipur by its Order dated 29.1.1970 ordered for decree of the suit based on the compromise which was based on written statement dated 7.1.1964 and passed the decree accordingly.

6. The purchaser from Fateh Lal, Sohan Lal filed a suit under Sections 88 & 183 of the Act for declaration and ejectment pertaining to the suit property against Fateh Lal and Lehar Bai based on the sale deed dated 24.6.1967. Fateh Lal and Lehar Bai filed their written statement and denied the contents of the suit; Lehar Bai also indicated that Sohan Lal had already filed a Civil Suit No.42/67 against Manohar Lal.

7. The SDO, Rajsamand framed 10 issues and after evidence was led by the parties, came to the conclusion that the suit property was purchased by Sohan Lal from Fateh Lal vide registered sale deed dated 24.6.1967; regarding the plea raised by the defendants based on document (Tehrir) dated 26.12.1958, it was held that it was not proved that the land in question was given by Fateh Lal to Lehar Bai for maintenance on 26.12.1958, the execution of the document w