1. - A challenge has been made in this petition, purporting to be both under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, to the judgment dated 09.01.2014 passed by the Board of Revenue (hereinafter 'the Board') upholding the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2003 under the hand of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sikar Camp Jhunjhunu (hereinafter 'the RAA'), who had set aside the judgment and decree dated 24.03.2003 passed by the SDO, Chirawa, who in turn had dismissed the suit of the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter 'the plaintiff') for declaration and correction of revenue entries.

2. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner defendant (hereinafter 'the defendant') and perused the judgment of the Board, the RAA as also the SDO, Chirawa. What emerges from the facts is that vide registered sale deed dated 15.06.1974, agricultural land in Khasra Nos. 251, 252, 253, 255 and 271 aggregating to 15 bigha & 5 biswa (new khasra Nos.595, 597, 598, 601, 602 and 603 measuring to 3.70 hectares) was purchased jointly by the plaintiff Subhash Chand (now dead and represented by his LRs) and his brother Shankar Lal in equal measure. Following the purchase, mutation No.286 and 298 dated 24.07.1974 and 20.09.1974 were sanctioned in the names of Subhash Chandra and Shankar Lal jointly. The vendees aforesaid came into possession of the lands purchased and the possession is reflected in Jamabandi of Samvat 2033. In the revenue entry of 2032-35 (in the Jamabandi) the plaintiff and his brother Shankar Lal were recorded as khudkhast tenants.

3. The plaintiff at the relevant time was employed with the Indian Army and was posted from place to place throughout the country until he retired in April, 1991. On return to the village, he found that his half share in the aforesaid khasras had been appropriated by Rameshwar Lal, his brother in conspiracy with Shankar Lal and his father on a purported application dated 10.09.1981 alleged to be carrying his signatures stating that his name in the joint khatedari with his brother Shankar Lal in the lands purchased on 15.06.1974 by a registered sale-deed with his brother Shankar Lal and subsequent mutation entries and revenue records 2032-35 was an inadvertent error and be replaced with the name of Rameshwar. The plaintiff's case was that on the basis of forged application dated 10.09.1981, on the same day, the Assistant Settlement Officer ordered for deleting his name from the joint khatedari and replacing it with that of his brother Rameshwar Lal. In these circumstances, the suit for declaration and correction of entries was laid by the plaintiff before the SDO, Chirawa.

4. The SDO, Chirawa on consideration of the evidence on record qua the issues framed, however, concluded that the application dated 10.09.1981 (Exhibit-7) purporting to be under the hand of the plaintiff was binding on him and consequent thereto, the defendant Rameshwar Lal alongwith Shankar Lal had been rightly shown as khatedars of the agricultural land in issue in Samvat 2050- 2053 onwards. Exhibit-7, the application dated 10.09.1981 purportedly in the name of plaintiff was held operative as if by way of estoppel against the plaintiff. In the circumstances overlooking the registered sale deed dated 15.06.1974 evidencing the plaintiff's half share in the agricultural lands in dispute as also consequent revenue entries for samvat 2032-35 recording the plaintiff as joint khatedar of the land and side-tracking the khasra girdwari samvat 2033 recording possession of the plaintiff as a joint khudkhast tenant in the disputed land, the SDO dismissed the plaintiff's suit for correction of entries.

5. In the plaintiff's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 24.03.2003 passed by the SDO, the RAA vide his judgment and decree dated 27.09.203 set aside the conclusions of the SDO and decreed the plaintiff's suit. The RAA held that the plaintiff was joint/half owner of the disputed land admeasuring 3.70 hectares alongwith the brother Shan