JUDGMENT :

1. The matter pertains to the year 1998, and thus, listed under the category of “Oldest Cases for Early Disposal”.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned orders vide Annexure-1 dated 13.3.95 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Annexure-2 dated 24.4.95 passed by Revenue Appellate Authority, Chittorgarh and Annexure-3 dated 23.6.98 passed by the Board of Revenue Ajmer be quashed and set aside and the suit of the Petitioner be decreed with costs as prayed for.

(ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent No.4 be restrained not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the land in dispute situated at Kotrikalan.

(iii) any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deem just and proper by passed in favour of the Petitioner.

(iv) Costs of the writ petition be allowed to the Petitioner.”

3. As per the pleaded facts, the petitioner instituted a suit bearing no.210/234 under Sections 88 & 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1955’) for declaration and permanent injunction, against the respondent no.4-Parasmal and one Shantilal s/o Shobhalal, before the learned Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Nimbaheda, in relation to Khasra No.24 measuring 4 Biswa, and Khasra No.25 measuring 2 Bighas and 6 Biswas, in all 6 Bighas and 7 Biswas land, situated in Village Kotrikalan, Nimbahera.

3.1. As per the petitioner, the land in question was gifted to her in the year 1952 by Shri Shobhalal as he treated the petitioner as his own daughter.

3.2. Thereafter, the mutation was made in the name of petitioner on 07.03.1955 and her name was accordingly entered in the Annual Register on coming into force of the Act of 1955, from 15.10.1955; in addition, mutation no.37 was made on 14.06.1962.

3.3. Subsequently, Shri Shobhalal died in the year 1981, whereafter the respondent no.4 and Shantilal threatened to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question, whereupon the petitioner filed the aforementioned suit; however, the same was dismissed vide the impugned judgment dated 13.03.1995. Aggrieved of the impugned judgment of the learned SDO, an appeal was preferred before the Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA), Chittorgarh which was dismissed vide the impugned judgment dated 24.04.1995, while holding that the petitioner had no right to institute a suit against Khatedar Parasmal (respondent no.4 herein).

3.4. Consequently, the petitioner preferred a second appeal before the learned Board of Revenue (BoR) for Rajasthan, Ajmer; however it was dismissed, while maintaining the findings of the revenue courts below vide the impugned judgment dated 23.06.1998. Aggrieved of the above impugned judgments of the SDO, RAA & BoR, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the land in question belonged to Late Shri Shobha Lal and the petitioner was in sub tenancy, whereafter it was orally gifted to the petitioner as Late Shri Shobhalal treated her as a daughter; further, the private respondent had tried to illegally dispossess the petitioner.

4.1. It was further submitted that mutation no.9 was made in favour of the petitioner and her name was recorded in Annual Register as Shikmi Kashatkar and after the Act of 1955 came into force, mutation no.37 was recorded in her name; thus by virtue of Sections 15 & 19 of the Act of 1955, the petitioner became the Khatedar of the land in question.

4.2. It was also submitted that the only piece of evidence submitted by the private respondent was a registered Will and only on the basis of this one document, the impugned judgments were passed in favour of the private respondent.

4.3. In furtherance, issue no.3 was formulated with respect to execution of the alleged Will in favour of the private respondent and its effect on the suit, and