The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of not substituting the court's own conclusions for those reached by the lower courts, especially when there are concurrent findings of fact.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioners/plaintiffs has filed the present writ petition with a challenge to the judgment dated 20.06.2019 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer (for short ‘the Second Appellate Authority’), the judgment dated 16.12.2014 passed by the Court of Revenue Appellate Authority, Ajmer (for short ‘the First Appellate Authority’) and the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2002 passed by the Court of Sub Divisional Officer, Masuda (Ajmer) [for short ‘the trial court’].

2. The facts in brief of the matter are that the petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit before the trial court under sections 88, 188 and 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act of 1955’) for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants in regard to land bearing Khasra No. 494 situated at Village Sikhrani, with the contention that a part of land of Khasra No. 494 was allotted to his father on 05.06.1968. It was further stated that the land was cultivated by the father of the petitioners Dulli Chand during his life time and after his death his legal representatives i.e. plaintiffs and defendant No.5 were having joint cultivatory possession over the land. It was further stated that even after allotment of the land in favour of the father of the petitioners and they being in continuous possession over the land, the name of their father was not recorded in the revenue record as a ‘gair khatedar’.

3. The written statement was submitted by the respondents/defendants denying the averments made in the plaint.

4. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed as many as eight issues and after recording the evidence of the parties and hearing them dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 13.12.2002.

5. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.12.2002 passed by the trial court, the petitioners/plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court and the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 16.12.2014.

6. The judgment dated 16.12.2014 was challenged by the petitioners/plaintiffs before the Second Appellate Authority by way of filing the second appeal and the second appeal was also dismissed vide judgment dated 20.06.2019.

7. Counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs submits that the orders passed by the Revenue Courts are illegal, perverse and contrary to the material available on the record. Counsel further submits that even after allotment of the land in favour of the father of the petitioners, the name of their father was not recorded in the revenue record as a ‘gair khatedar’, though his name is entitled to be recorded as a ‘gair khatedar’.

8. Heard and considered.

9. Counsel for the petitioners has tried to convince this Court by making submissions on the factual matrix but could not point out any illegality in regard to jurisdiction of the Court concerned or any failure of the Court in the procedure prescribed under the law while disposing of the suit and the appeals.

10. The arguments of the counsel appearing for the petitioners submitting that there are erroneous findings recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the Appellate Courts. This Court after perusing the judgments passed by the Revenue Courts would like to observe that on all the issues framed before the trial court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court while recording the finding on each issue minutely examined the record, evaluated the evidence and then after detailed deliberations, the same has been decided. Thus, no infirmity can be found with the findings recorded by the trial court.

11. Further this Court is of the view that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the three Revenue Courts are not required to be interferred with as there is no infirmity in the same and requires no interference by this Court as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kondiba Dagadu Kadam Vs. Savitribai Sopan Gujar & Ors., reported in (1993) 3 SCC 722, para para 5 of which is as under:

“It is not within the