JUDGMENT :

1. This instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers as under:-

“It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that the writ petitioner may kindly be allowed by issuing a writ, order or direction by quashing and setting aside the judgment and decree dt. 13.10.2006 passed by the Board of Revenue by decreeing the suit in favour of the petitioner.

Cost of the litigation may also be awarded to the petitioner.

Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that one Kesraram, petitioner Dropati’s father, during his lifetime, married twice; firstly with Smt. Rukma, and out of their wedlock, one Natthuram was born and then he married Smt. Dakha and out of their wedlock, the petitioner i.e. Smt. Dropati was born. After the death of Kesraram’s first wife i.e. Rukma, he married Smt. Dakha, who already had four offsprings from her first marriage with one Pemaram.

3. The petitioner herein filed a Revenue Suit in the Court of Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar, under Sections 92-A and 53 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1955”), for partition and permanent injunction on the ground that the petitioner is a legal heir of the deceased Kesaram and has right in 1/2 share of the agricultural land situated at Chak No.51 NP Sq.No.36 comprising of 24.10 Bigha, which was permanently allotted to father of the petitioner, who expired in the year 1988 leaving behind the disputed land in question for which, the petitioner filed a suit against her late step-brother namely Natthuram, who is the son of the petitioner’s late father i.e. Kesraram from his previous marriage with Smt. Rukma. Nathuram also expired and thus, his legal representatives are party respondents in the writ petition as respondents Nos.5 to 9.

4. The suit was registered as a Regular Suit No.62/96 and the respondents were summoned by way of notices. In compliance of the notices, the respondents filed a detailed reply of the plaint by which, they denied the averments of the plaint and stated that the plaintiff is not the real daughter of late Shri Kesraram. They further stated that she is the daughter of Pemaram and Dakha but not born out of the second wedlock of Kesraram with Dakha, and also stated that late Natthuram was the only son of late Shri Kesraram and thus, only the wife and children of Nathuram have right in the aforesaid property and none other.

5. The learned trial court framed six issues and recorded the statements of PW1 Karnaram (brother of Kesraram) and PW2 Smt. Uma Devi, (step-sister of the petitioner-Plaintiff, born out of the wedlock of Dakha and her first husband Pemaram), who is also the power of attorney holder in the case filed on behalf of Dropati in the court of Sub Divisional Officer, Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar and in defence, the Respondents-defendants got examined Smt. Lichhma and Om Prakash as DW1 and DW2 respectively.

6. After hearing the arguments advanced by both the parties, the learned trial court decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner vide judgment/decree dated 21.12.2000. After passing of the decree, the disputed land in question was recorded in the name of the Plaintiff-petitioner. Thereafter, against the judgment/decree dated 21.12.2000, the respondents Nos.5 to 9 preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sriganganagar, which was also dismissed vide order dated 10.07.2002, whereby the Revenue Appellate Authority affirmed the judgment/decree passed by the court below.

7. Thus, against the judgment/decree dated 21.12.2000 and the order dated 10.07.2002 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, the respondents Nos.5 to 9 preferred the second appeal under Section 224(2) of the Act of 1955 before the Boa