The main legal point established in the judgment is that the burden of proving joint ownership of ancestral property lies with the claimant, and such burden cannot be discharged solely by oral evidence. The court emphasized the importance of documentary evidence and the statutory presumption attached to the revenue record in determining ownership rights.

Headnote:
Joint Hindu Family Property - Rajasthan Tenancy Act - Sections 53, 88, 188 - The court discussed the provisions of Sections 53, 88, and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, which were relevant to the dispute over the ancestral property. The court emphasized the importance of documentary evidence and the presumption of truth attached to the revenue record in determining ownership of the disputed property. The court held that oral evidence alone was not sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption and establish joint ownership.
Fact of the Case:

The appellants filed a suit claiming joint ownership of ancestral property, which was recorded in the revenue records in the name of one of the brothers. The Assistant Collector decreed the suit in favor of the appellants, but the Revenue Appellate Authority and Board of Revenue rejected the claim. The appellants filed a writ petition, which was dismissed by the Single Bench, leading to the special appeal.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the revenue record showed the property in the name of one brother, and the oral evidence presented by the appellants was not sufficient to establish joint ownership. The court upheld the findings of the Revenue Appellate Authority and Board of Revenue, concluding that the appellants failed to prove joint ownership of the disputed property.
Issues: The main issue was the ownership of the disputed property and whether it qualified as joint Hindu family ancestral property. The court also considered the admissibility and sufficiency of oral and documentary evidence in establishing ownership rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the burden of proving joint ownership over the disputed property was on the appellants and that such burden could not be discharged solely by oral evidence. The court emphasized the importance of documentary evidence and the statutory presumption attached to the revenue record. It concluded that the oral testimony presented was not sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the special appeal, upholding the findings of the Revenue Appellate Authority and Board of Revenue. It held that the evidence presented by the appellants was not sufficient to establish joint ownership of the disputed property.

JUDGMENT :

KULDEEP MATHUR, J.

1. The present special appeal is directed against order dated 06.07.2001 passed by learned Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2286/2001 (Mangal Das and Others vs. Board of Revenue and Others), whereby the writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by the appellants with the prayer to set aside the judgment of Revenue Appellate Authority-II, Jodhpur as affirmed by Board of Revenue, Ajmer, vide judgment dated 18.01.2001, by restoring judgment dated 25.11.1991, passed by Assistant Collector, Desuri declaring the property in dispute to be a Joint Hindu family ancestral property, was dismissed.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellants filed a suit under Sections 53, 88, 188 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act before Assistant Collector, Desuri stating inter-alia, that Khasra No. 97 admeasuring 19 bighas and 16 biswas, Khasra No. 98 ad-measuring 5 bighas 1 biswa and Khasra No. 171 ad-measuring 14 bighas and 4 biswas, measuring a total of 39 bighas and 1 biswa, situated at Chak No. 1, village Nadol, belongs to the Joint Family of Late Shri Birad Das and his three sons namely, Ganesh Das, Gheesu Das and Mangi Das. In the suit, it was further stated that the land in dispute had been wrongly recorded in the revenue records in the name of Ganesh Das, though it was a Joint Hindu Family property in which all three brothers were having 1/3rd shares. It was thus prayed that declaration for necessary corrections be made in revenue record to the effect that all the legal heirs of late Shri Birad Das are Khatedars of the disputed land.

3. In the reply, it was pleaded that Ganesh Das was the sole khatedar of the land in dispute and therefore in the revenue records, the land had been rightly recorded in his name. It was further stated that Shri Ganesh Das lived separately from his father late Shri Birad Das and the land in dispute was acquired by him in personal capacity through his own resources.

4. In the rejoinder, it was stated on behalf of the appellants-plaintiffs that Ganesh Das, being the eldest son of late Shri Birad Das was the Karta of the family and in that capacity only, the land was recorded in his name. Further, it was stated that ‘Bigori’ (Rent of the disputed land) used to be deposited by Ganesh Das on behalf of the joint Hindu Family and other brothers, namely Gheesu Das and Mangi Das contributed and paid their shares of the rent to Ganesh Das. To substantiate this, certain rent receipts signed by Ganesh Das pertaining to Samwat years 2011-2013 were produced with the suit.

5. The learned Assistant Collector, Desuri vide judgment dated 25.11.1991 decreed the suit in favour of the appellant-plaintiffs holding that the disputed land was a joint Hindu Family property. The learned Assistant Collector, Desuri also held that Ganesh Das used to recover rent from Gheesu Das (plaintiff), which clearly shows that plaintiff had 1/3rd share in the disputed property and contribution of 1/3 amount of ‘Bigori’ (Rent) was made towards the same. Learned Assistant Collector, relying on the oral testimonies of the witnesses concluded that appellant-plaintiffs have 1/3rd share in the disputed land, entitling them to a declaration of Khatedari right, as prayed for in the suit.

6. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 25.11.1991 of Assistant Collector, Desuri the respondent-defendants challenged the same before Revenue Appellate Authority II, Jodhpur. The Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur vide its judgment dated 24.08.1993 was pleased to accept the appeal filed under Section 223 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act against the judgment and decree dated 25.11.1991 passed by the Assistant Collector, Desuri. The Revenue Appellate Authority held that since the land in dispute had been entered in the name of Ganesh Das in the revenue records, the same cannot be declared as an ancestral property only on the basis of oral evidence. A decree for declaration in partition cannot be granted in favour of the respo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document