SHARMA, M.—This appeal is being reheard by this court in compliance of the High Court judgment dated 2.7.1998 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3176/90.

2. The brief facts of this case are that Shri Bheru Ram filed a suit under Section 88 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act (in short the `Act') against Shri Harjee, Deva and Smt. Tulsi in the court of Assistant Collector, Barmer. The land in dispute is khasra No. 379 measuring 108 Bigha 3 biswa in village Sanawara. In his plaint Shri Bhera averred that 1/2 share of the disputed land is being cultivated by him since his birth but the settlement department entered the entire land in name of the defendants- Shri Harjee et. al. The trial court decreed the suit on 7.5.1981. The appellants/ defendants filed the first appeal in the court of Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur who dismissed the appeal on 5.6.1982 and concurred with the trial Court. The appellants filed the second appeal in this court which was accepted on 27.12.1988 and the judgments & decree of the lower courts were quashed. The respondents also filed a review petition in this court, which was also dismissed by this court on 16.6.1990 the respondents filed a writ petition in the Rajasthan High Court against the judgment of this court which was accepted on 2.7.1998 and the judgment of this court was quashed. The High Court remanded the matter to this Court for hearing the case again on merits including the point of limitation.

3. Heard the learned counsels of the rival parties.

4. The counsel for the appellant argued that the judgments and decrees passed by the trial court & the appellate court are in contravention of the basic principles of justice. He contended that this appeal was filed in this court on 12.9.1983 against the judgment of the Appellate court dated 5.6.1982. He submitted that the appellate Court did not prepare the decree in compliance of its judgment. On the application of the appellants the decree was prepared on 23.6.1983 and the copy of the judgment and decree were taken and the appeal was filed on 12.9.1983 which is under the prescribed limitation. He also emphasized that issuance of the decree was the job of the appellate court therefore this appeal may be considered within the limitation period. He further contended that there is no family tree given by the respondent/plaintiff, which can prove his blood relation with the appellants and this land is not at all a jagir land as averred by the respondents. He argued that the land in question has been entered in name of the appellants/defendants in revenue record since 2010 and they have been solitarily in peaceful possession of the land. There is no documentary evidence of their possession. He further argued that on the basis of vague oral evidence our long standing khatedari rights cannot be brought to an end. In the last, he urged the court to accept the appeal on merits.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the appeal is hopelessly time barred and there is no application for condonation of delay. He argued that the appellants did not apply even for taking the certified copy of the judgment & decree well in time therefore, they cannot take support at this fact that the decree was not prepared by the court in time. They could have taken the copy of judgment and filed the appeal even without the decree. He also submitted that the land in question is a jagir land and the parties belong to one extended family. He also contended that in the second appeal only the legal infirmity, if any can be examined. This court cannot examine this case on facts & evidence. The learned counsel also submitted that the trial court has given its explicit finding on each issue based on the evidence available on file. The appellate court has also conformed with the trial Court in its findings. He urged the court that there is hardly any legal issue raised by the appellant in this appeal, therefore the appeal be dismissed and the concurrent findin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document