Per Shri Balwant Singh—This is an appeal filed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs in both the lower courts. The brief facts of the case are as follows—

Beera and Koka sons of Narayan filed a suit for declaration under sec. 101 of Jaipur Tenancy Act on 8-8-50 in the court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Jaipur. The plaintiffs pleaded that their father was in cultivation of the suit land and had expired in the year 1937 when they were minors. Their mother Bhaga executed a sale deed in favour of Fakruddin on 22-2-41 which she was not entitled to execute. Inspite of this sale deed the plaintiffs had been in continuous possession. They therefore prayed that they be declared as khatedar tenants of land and further prayed that the sale deed be held void and the mutation proceedings held illegal.

The defendants denied the claim and pleaded that he had been put in possession through the above mentioned sale deed and further pleaded that a suitable amount had been spent on the improvement of the said land which had never been objected to by the plaintiffs. Afterwards Mst. Bhaga was also impleaded as party who pleaded that she had borrowed money in connection with the marriage of her son Heera and she affixed the thumb impression on the deed on the sole assurance of the defendant and under the bonafide belief that no mischief will be played on her.

After proper enquiry the trial court held that the defendant is the recorded khatedar tenant of the suit land and the plaintiffs are the sub-tenants of the defendant. The suit was ultimately dismissed. The plaintiffs went in appeal before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur who also rejected the appeal. They have now come up in this second appeal before us.

We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. The main plea advanced on behalf of the plaintiffs is that the said sale, if any, was void under the then prevailing law of the Jaipur Chakbandi Rules. They had been in continuous possession of the land. Even if they are treated as sub-tenants then the Khatedari rights have already accrued to them through the amendment to sec. 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The contention of the respondent defendant is that he had been put in possession of the property through a valid sale deed and as such he had been in possession for a very long period. The plaintiff had been admitted after a period of about 8 years as subtenants in the year 1944 and then in the year 1946 and lastly in the year 1949. Mst. Bhagga and Beera had accepted the relinquishment of their possession several times in their respective statements during the proceedings of sale, mutation at the time of executing the lease deed. They are now estopped to allege otherwise. The defendant further pleaded that they had no heritable rights over the suit land as per provisions of the then prevailing tenancy laws of Jaipur State.

Though the Jaipur State Chakbandi rules have no legal force now but they had the force of law at that time. Let us therefore see what rights they had bestowed on the tenants. According to the provisions of sec. 4 of the Jaipur Chakbandi Rules it is laid down that after the death of a tenant the heir could retain possession for 5 years and at the end of 4th year the Tehsildar should report the matter to the Nazim either to confirm the right of tenancy on the heir or to auction out the culti-vatory rights. It is borne out from the records and which has not been denied by by any party that neither the land was taken away from the heirs of the deceased as per provisions of law by the Revenue Department to the defendant. As per provisions of sec. 24 of the Jaipur Chakbandi Rules no tenant had any right to sell out the land. It therefore clearly shows that neither the defendant was in lawful possession of the disputed land nor the plaintiffs were recorded as Khatedars of the land after the death of their father. The contention of the plaintiff that they were minors when the sale d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document