1. This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment dated 24.08.2000 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, whereby, the second appeal filed by respondent No. 6 - Ganpat has been allowed and the judgment and decree dated 29.09.1997 passed by Additional Commissioner (Colonization) and Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner and judgment and decree dated 13.02.1997 passed by Assistant Commissioner (Colonization), Nohar Sahwa have been set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff - Ganpat for partition has been decreed.

2. The facts in brief may be noticed thus : plaintiff - Ganpat filed a suit for partition, inter alia, with the averments that the land ad measuring 53 Bigha 10 Biswa at village Baramsar was of the Khatedari of Jetha Ram; the plaintiff was son of Bega Ram, who was son of Jetha Ram and the other defendants were all the part of family of late Jetha Ram; it was claimed that Jetha Ram had three sons and all the three sons/other respective heirs have ⅓rd share in the disputed land and, therefore, the same be partitioned.

3. The suit was resisted by Manphool - grand-son of Jetha Ram and son of Hajari; it was, inter alia, claimed that he was in exclusive possession of the land and before him, his father was in exclusive possession; during the life time of Jetha Ram, he gave other lands to his other two sons Bega Ram and Mana Ram and both of them lived separately and the suit land was exclusively given to Hajari with whom Jetha Ram lived; it was contended that the other two brothers of Hajari had no share in the disputed land and previously two suits were filed, one by Mana Ram and other by Mana Ram and Hari Ram S/o Bega Ram for declaration and partition of the same disputed property; the subject matter and cause of action in all three suits are same; Ganpat was also a party in the previously filed suits, wherein, he filed written statement supporting plea of the plaintiffs and, therefore, the present suit on the same cause of action was not maintainable.

4. The Assistant Commissioner (Colonization) framed issues and evidence was led by the parties; the Assistant Commissioner (Colonization) by his judgment dated 13.02.1997 came to the conclusion that Jetha Ram expired in Samvat year 2006 and none of the parties had produced record for the period prior to Samvat 2012, Jetha Ram though expired before Samvat 2006, his name continued till Samvat 2027; the names of legal representatives in settlement from Samvat 2006 raises doubt and in Missal Bandobast from Samvat 2020 to 2039 the land was recorded in the name of Hajari S/o Jetha Ram and the suit has been filed in the year 1988; Jetha Ram was living with Hajari and the land in dispute came to his exclusive share, on which, he was in possession and, consequently, decided the issues against the plaintiff; regarding the issues pertaining to estoppel and res judicata on account of filing of the earlier suit, the issues were decided against the defendant.

5. Feeling aggrieved, Ganpat filed appeal.

6. The first appellate court by its judgment dated 29.09.1997 upheld the judgment passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Colonization) and on account of filing of two earlier suits came to the conclusion that the third suit was filed for harassing the defendant.

7. However, the Board of Revenue on second appeal came to the conclusion that the suit property admittedly belonged to Jetha Ram, who had three sons; the disputed land was recorded in the revenue record for Samvat 2012 to 2015 in the name of Jetha Ram and in Jamabandi for Samvat 2016-2019 also name of Jetha Ram along with his three sons was entered, which was scored out but in Misal Bandobast for Samvat 2029 to 2038 name of Hajari as Khatedar was indicated and in Khatoni Bandobast for Samvat 2029 to 2038 the same was recorded in the name of sons of Jetha Ram and as in Khasra Girdawari for Samvat 2012, 2014 and 2015 all three sons are recorded to be in possession and, in t