In a dispute over land rights, the burden of proof lies on the party claiming ownership or any other right over the land. Mere possession or mutation in one's name, without establishing a valid legal basis, is insufficient to confer ownership rights.

1. - This petition is directed against judgment dated 10.5.16 of the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer, whereby the second appeal preferred by the petitioners against the judgment and decree dated 3.9.08 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA), Bhilwara, stands dismissed.

2. The relevant facts are that the first respondent preferred a suit for declaration of khatedari rights and permanent injunction under Section 88, 89, 92A and 188 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 in the court of Sub Divisional Officer, Jahajpur, against the petitioners in respect of land 18 measuring bighas 13 biswas comprising Arazi No.2125, 2127/2, 2138, 2139, 2142, 2143, 2144 situated in village Bisania, Tehsil Kotari, District Bhilwara, which was entered in the revenue record in the name of the petitioner no.1 and the respondent and the land measuring 15 bighas 19 biswas comprising Arazi No.137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142 situated in village Kesarpura, Patwar Halka Dhanwara, Tehsil Kotari, District Bhilwara, which was entered in the revenue record in the name of the petitioners and the respondent.

3. Precisely, the case of the respondent was that the land in question before the settlement was entered in the revenue record as Khatedari land of his father Goru, who expired during the settlement operation. At the time of death of his father, the respondent was minor and taking advantage of the situation in collusion with the revenue authorities, the father of the petitioners herein got entered one half share in the disputed land in his name in the revenue record. The respondent claimed that he is in cultivatory possession of the entire land.

4. The suit was contested by the petitioners by filing a written statement thereto, claiming that the disputed land is a joint Khatedari of the petitioners and the respondent and they are in joint cultivatory possession thereof. The petitioners claimed that their father had one half share in the land in question and therefore, the land was entered in the revenue record accordingly, with the consent of mother of the respondent Smt. Kesar. The petitioners claimed that their father Barju was in cultivatory possession of the land even prior to the year 1962.

5. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the revenue court framed the issues and the parties led their evidence. After due consideration of the evidence on record, the SDO arrived at the finding that the disputed land was Khatedari land of Goru, who expired after coming into force of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and therefore, by inheritance the land was required to be entered in the name of the respondent herein. The court observed that on the basis of the mutation, the petitioners herein cannot claim any right over the ancestral land of the respondent. Accordingly, the suit preferred by the respondent was decreed by the SDO, Jahajpur, vide judgment and decree dated 28.3.08.

6. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28.3.08 passed by the SDO, Jahajpur, as aforesaid, the petitioners preferred an appeal, which stood dismissed by the RAA, Bhilwara, vide judgment and decree dated 3.9.08. The second appeal preferred by the petitioners also stands dismissed by the Board of Revenue by the impugned judgment. Hence, this petition.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners' father Barju was adopted son of Goru and the respondent was born after the adoption of the petitioners' father. Learned counsel submitted that after death of Goru, the land was got entered in the revenue record in the name of the respondent and the petitioners' father Barju with the consent of the respondent's mother Smt. Kesar. Learned counsel submitted that the fact that the petitioners are in joint cultivatory possession of the land in question prior to the year 1962, has altogether been ignored by the revenue courts, which has resulted in an erroneous finding being arrived at.

8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the ma