Back
SUDESH BANSAL
Maqsood Khan S/o Shri Abdul Khan – Appellant
Versus
Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SUDESH BANSAL, J.
1. Instant writ petition has been preferred by petitioner-plaintiff, challenging the judgment dated 15.01.1996 passed by Board of Revenue in second appeal, whereby and whereunder plaintiff’s revenue suit for declaration of his joint khatedari rights and claiming partition of half share in the land of Khasra No. 325, has been dismissed and decree passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 23.12.1989 has been quashed to this extent. It is noteworthy that by the same judgment dated 15.01.1996, the Board of Revenue has affirmed the decree dated 23.12.1989 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority in respect of passing a preliminary decree for partition of lands of Khasra Nos. 24 and 55 in equal half-half share between plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 6 and to the extent of passing this preliminary decree for partition in respect of Khasra Nos. 24 and 55, the judgment of Board of Revenue is not under challenge in this writ petition.
2. Petitioner-Maqsood Khan (now deceased) was the sole plaintiff who instituted a revenue suit in the year 1980 before the Court of Assistant Collector, Jhunjhunu for declaration of khatedari rights and partition under Section
Khatedari rights under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act are granted only to actual cultivators, not to those claiming through others without evidence of cultivation.
The court established that the lands had already been divided, and the right of the parties defined, precluding repartition.
The court established that khatedari rights must be respected and that revenue authorities must maintain accurate records without unjustified alterations.
Mutation entries in revenue record are only for a fiscal purpose and do not create any title/ownership right in favour of person in whose name mutation entry has been made.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that land on the road should be divided amongst all the co-sharers in proportion to their share in the total land holding, as per the Haryana Land ....
Ownership rights cannot be established solely through revenue records; proper evidence of joint tenancy is required.
In disputes regarding partition of joint Hindu family property, the burden of proof lies on the party asserting partition, and the presumption of jointness remains unless clear evidence to the contra....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
