Arun Bhansali, J.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the judgment dated 13.11.1995 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer ('BOR'), whereby their second appeal against the judgment dated 26.3.1991 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner ('RAA') has been rejected.

2. The respondents No. 3 to 5's father Khamu filed a suit for partition and correction of entries in the Court of Assistant Collector, Taranagar in the year 1981; it was inter-alia contended that the plaintiff and defendants belong to one family and their agriculture land is situated at old khasra No. 24 ad measuring 128.9 Bigha and whose new khasra numbers were 66 to 70, 73 ad measuring 100 Bigha 15 Biswa at Village Dhana Pata Satau. It was claimed that the plaintiff has ?rd share in the land in question and a decree for partition and declaration was sought. The defendants filed their written statement along with counter claim and submitted that they were in possession of land ad measuring 71 Bigha 9 Biswa by way of partition which took place long back and that they are cultivating the same. It was also submitted that plaintiff – Khamu is cultivating land ad measuring 31 Bigha and remaining 20 Bigha land is being cultivated by Gopal @ Gokul and based on the submissions made in the written statement/counter claim correction of entries was sought.

3. The trial court framed five issues and after evidence was led by the parties, it came to the conclusion that the land in question was divided long back amongst the parties and they were cultivating their respective portions; partition took place long back by metes and bounds; there was no plea of joint cultivation and based on its findings, the Assistant Collector rejected the suit and decreed the counter claim.

4. Feeling aggrieved, Khamu filed appeal before the RAA. The RAA after hearing the parties accepted the appeal and decreed the suit filed by Khamu and rejected the counter claim by its judgment and decree dated 26.3.1991.

5. In second appeal filed by the petitioners, the judgment of RAA was maintained and the appeal preferred by the petitioners was dismissed.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that from the documentary and ocular evidence produced by the parties, the partition of land in question was proved, however, the RAA without discussing the documents and other material evidence decided the issues in favour of the respondents without adverting to the said documents and as such, the findings cannot be sustained. With reference to the documents Ex.-A/1 - an application submitted by the parties before the settlement authorities, it was claimed that there was a partition and land was being cultivated by the parties ever since; the application Ex.-A/1 is supported by Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari and in terms of Section 53 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ('the Act') a division of holding can take place by agreement between the co-tenants and therefore, the RAA and the BOR committed error in decreeing the suit and dismissing the counter claim. It was submitted that the petitioners are holding the possession of the land in question and were also paying the rent of the disputed land and as such, the partition was proved on record. It was emphasised that from Jamabandi of Samvat year 2011-18 (Ex.-A/3 & Ex.-A/4) from column 5, it is proved on record that the petitioners were in cultivatory possession of land ad measuring 71 Bigha 9 Biswa and Khamu was having cultivatory possession of land ad measuring 31 Bigha, which was in terms of the partition between the parties.

7. It was also submitted that the petitioners had acquired right by adverse possession. Another plea was raised that the RAA and BOR have ignored the fact that Narayan had gone in adoption. It was prayed that the judgments passed by the RAA and BOR be quashed and set-aside.

8. Reliance was placed on Kale and ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors. : 1976(3) SCC 119.