A. Mutation Proceedings - Mutation proceedings are summary proceedings which are fiscal in nature and the same does not create or extinguish title nor it has presumptive value on title. [Para 9]

B. Sale Deed - Execution - No evidence was produced by defendants to prove that sale deed was executed by `G' in State of intoxication - Execution of sale deed, a registered document was proved by the plaintiffs by producing document writer and attesting witness evidence - Held, there is no reason to disbelieve execution of sale deed - Held, land having already been transferred by `G' in favour of plaintiffs by way of registered sale deed and having acquired khatedari rights over land in question, subsequent sale deed executed by `D' in favour of petitioners, does not create any right in their favour and plaintiff were not required to challenge thereof - Impugned judgment and decree does not suffer from any irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference - Petition dismissed. [Paras 8 to 12]

ORDER :

Sangeet Lodha, J.

This petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19.2.98 passed by the Board of Revenue, whereby an appeal preferred by the petitioners against the judgment and decree dated 17.9.79 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA), Jodhpur, in Appeal No. 55/79, reversing the judgment and decree dated 19.1.79 passed by the Assistant Collector, Bhinmal, stands dismissed.

2. The facts relevant are that the respondents no. 4 to 7 herein filed a revenue suit for declaration and possession in the court of Assistant Collector, Bhinmal, against the petitioners, in respect of the land measuring 39 bighas 15 biswas comprising khasra no.58, situated at village-Pur, District-Bhilwara, on the ground that the land in question was purchased by the plaintiffs from the defendant late Shri Gulab Singh in Samvat Year 2016 by way of registered sale deed executed on 4.9.61. The suit was contested by the defendants by filing a written statement thereto, taking the stand that the alleged sale deed was got executed by the plaintiffs when Shri Gulab Singh was in the state of intoxication. It was further averred that the sale deed was executed without any consideration and possession was never handed over to the plaintiffs. It was further stated that later, the land in question was sold by Smt. Dharam Kanwar, widow of late Shri Gulab Singh to S/Shri Jodha and Pancha by way of registered sale deed.

3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the issues and parties led their evidence. After due consideration of the evidence on record, the suit was dismissed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 19.1.79. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal before RAA, Jodhpur, which was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 17.9.79 and accordingly, while decreeing the suit, the plaintiffs were declared khatedar tenant of the disputed land and were held entitled for possession of the land from the defendants no. 3 & 4. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the RAA, Jodhpur as aforesaid, the defendants, the petitioners herein, preferred a second appeal before the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, which stood dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 24.9.86. The legality of the judgment and decree passed by the Board of Revenue was questioned by the defendants by way of writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2384/86 before this court, which was allowed by a coordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 14.1.97 and the matter was remanded to the Board of Revenue. The operative portion of the order dated 14.1.97 passed by this court reads as under:

"Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the order passed by the Board of Revenue Ex.7 dated 24.9.1986 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Board of Revenue to first decide the question of limitation and to give a definite finding whether the suit filed by the respondent no.4 to 7 was within the period of limitation or

Click Here to Read the rest of this document