Hon'ble MISHRA, CJ.—There is delay of 53 days in filing the intra court appeal.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act duly supported by affidavit, delay in filing the intra court appeal is condoned. The application is disposed of.

3. Heard on the question of admission.

4. The intra court appeal has been preferred questioning legality of the order dated 18.2.2011 passed by Single Bench dismissing Civil Writ Petition No.15797/2010 upholding the orders dated 6.10.2004 and 28.10.2010 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and Board of Revenue respectively.

5. Plaintiff-Jai Narayan had filed revenue suit No.96/1994 before the Assistant Collector, Dudu, District Jaipur, which was dismissed on 9.11.1999. Case set up by defendant-Bheru is that though patta was issued in the year 1950 in the name Ramu, father of the plaintiff and defendant, settlement parcha was issued in the name of Ramu and after his death, name of the plaintiff was mutated alongwith Bheru. However, Bheru alone had purchased the property in the year 1950 in the name of his father. Thus, actual owner/khatedar was Bheru alone.

6. The Revenue Appellate Authority vide its judgment dated 6.10.2004 held that the plaintiff was the owner to the extent of 1/4th share and Bheru was also having only 1/4th share in the property. The Board of Revenue has agreed with Revenue Appellate Authority. The decisions of the Revenue Appellate Authority as well as Board of Revenue have been affirmed by the Single Bench. Hence, the intra court appeal has been preferred.

7. Mr. Saket Pareek, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has strenuously urged that documents-Exhibits D/1 and D/2 could not have been ignored; though patta was obtained in the name of father of plaintiff and the defendant, however, actual owner/holder of the property was Bheru, who was predecessor-in-title of the appellants; illegality has been committed by Revenue Appellate Authority and Board of Revenue as well as by Single Bench in holding otherwise. He has also submitted that the suit filed by Bheru was decreed by the trial court; no appeal was preferred as against the same. However, as against dismissal of the suit filed by Jai Narayan, appeal was preferred before the Revenue Appellate Authority. As such, decision rendered by the Assistant Collector in favour of Bheru had attained finality, and that would operate as res judicata. Though this question has not been raised before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Board of Revenue or before the Single Bench, however, the same may be permitted to be urged for the first time in the intra court appeal. He has relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court rendered in Premier Tyres Limited vs. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, 1993 Supp.(2) SCC 146 and Harbans Singh & Ors. vs. Sant Hari Singh & Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 526.

8. Firstly we take up the question whether findings of fact recorded by the Revenue Appellate Authority with respect to 1/4 share of the plaintiff as well as 1/4th share of the defendant in the property suffers from any infirmity or illegality.

9. It is not disputed that the document executed in the year 1950 was in the name of Ramu, who was father of the plaintiff-Jai Narayan as well as defendant-Bheru. Ramu died in Samvat-year 2025 corresponding to Gregorian calendar year 1968. For the purpose of defeating the title of the original plaintiff, document dated 14.4.1983 was relied upon in which the plaintiff had admitted that in fact the land was owned by Bheru alone. The said document has not been relied upon by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Board of Revenue or by the Single Bench and statement of plaintiff does not relate to the property in question. It was not the registered document. Admittedly, the document was executed in the year 1950 in favour of Ramu, father of the plaintiff and defendant and name of both the brothers was mutated on death of Ramu in the year 1968, the submission raised by learned c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document