1. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has given a valid explanation for the defects pointed out by the Registry. It is submitted that respondent No.4 was a party-respondent in the writ petition. He is heir of Late Shri Manohar Lal, and since he was already a party as a respondent, it was not necessary to include him in the amended cause title in the writ petition. The defect will thus be treated to be removed.

2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants.

3. This intra-court Special Appeal arises out of the judgment dated 14.11.2014 passed by learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5855/1997 (Manohar Lal (dead) through LRs. & Anr. Vs. The Board of Revenue & Ors.), by which learned Single Judge has confirmed the judgment of the Board of Revenue, Ajmer dated 23.07.1997, setting aside the judgment and decree dated 24.08.1993 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Alwar, and upheld the judgment and decree dated 09.01.1986 passed by the Assistant Collector, Rajgarh, Laxmangarh, District Alwar, whereby the plaintiff-respondent's suit for declaration of khatedari rights and partition, in respect of 1/4 of the agricultural land measuring 21 bigha 7 biswa in khasra Nos.223, 225, 226, 227, 333, 1020, 1021 and 1022 at Village Ganduda, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Alwar, was decreed.

4. Learned Single Judge upheld the findings recorded by the Board of Revenue, by which it had set aside the judgment of the Revenue Appellate Authority. The Board of Revenue had held, that there was no proof of partition between the ancestors of the appellants 150 years ago, or at any time before filing of the suit. The suit land was consistently recorded as joint holding between the family members. The burden to prove issue No.4, regarding oral partition, was on the defendants/respondents. They could not prove, either by documentary evidence, or even by oral evidence, that there was any partition in the family. The land was continuously recorded in the revenue records, as joint khatedari land. There was no explanation as to why steps were not taken for recording the partition, and the land to have fallen in the alleged respective shares, if there was, as alleged any oral partition between the ancestors of the parties.

5. The Revenue Board further found that a suit for permanent injunction was filed in the year 1974, under Section 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, which was decreed on 30.05.1978, and against which the appeal was dismissed on 04.08.1978, and the second appeal was dismissed on 27.08.1984, in which the respondents were injuncted from interfering in the land, on the findings that the land is still recorded as joint khatedari land. The Assistant Collector had thus rightly decreed the suit for partition.

6. The Revenue Board further found that the plea, that the land belongs to the Temple, which could not have been partitioned, cannot be accepted, as this plea was taken during the course of hearing, whereas the defendant had claimed the entire land as his own khatedari, after oral partition in the family about 150 years ago.

7. The Revenue Board further held that the continuous possession of the defendants, cannot defeat the claim of the partition, so long as the land was recorded as joint khatedari land. On such undivided land, the cultivation made by one of the co-owners, is for the benefit of all other co-owners.

8. Learned Single Judge has upheld the findings of the Revenue Board. It was argued before learned Single Judge that the defendants are in continuous possession of the land, for a long period of time, and thus, adverse possession can be claimed against the plaintiff. It was held that the stand is of no avail, for the exclusion of the right of the defendants on the khatedari land, as was evident from the revenue records. The suit for partition under Section 53 of the Act of 1955 was not liable to be dismissed, on the ground of res judicata, as the previous suit under Section 188 o