C.S. Gupta, Member—This is second appeal under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 against judgment and decree dated 6-5-71 of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur which was passed in revenue appeal No. 207 of 1970. Purshottam Lal plaintiff brought a suit under Sec. 53 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act for partition of joint holding on the basis of recorded half share of the plaintiff and the remaining half of the defendants. The suit disclosed a joint holding of khasra Nos. measuring 8 bighas 3 biswas situated in Kapasan. The defendants averred in their written statements that two more khasra Nos. 3857 of 2 biswas and 3858 of 1 bigha 14 biswas were also in joint possession of the two contesting parties and so they should also form the subject matter of partition. The defendants further claimed that private partition had already been effected between the parties in respect of the disputed holding sometime in 1953 and both parties had separated with their share of land and so the question of further partition of the holding did not arise but they admitted that if any such partition had been ever effected by the consent of the parties it was not duly recorded either in the form of an instrument or incorporated in the record of right. According to the record of right the entire holding remained joint and half has been shown to belonging to the plaintiff and half to the defendants.

The defendants further claimed that the joint holding in dispute had come from original khatedar Prabhulal whose widow Mst. Bhooribai was alive. Prabhulal had two sons Purshottam Lal who is the plaintiff and Gordhan Lal who has since expired leaving behind Sohanlal. Mohanlal and Giriraj Prasad, sons who are the defendants in the present suit. The defendants claimed that Mst. Boori Bai was a necessary party to the present suit of partition and that she was entitled to l/3rd share in the disputed holding and 1/3rd share should go to the plaintiff and the rest 1/3rd share to the defendants jointly.

The S.D.O. Kapasan as a trial Court framed the issues and heard the parties in respect of issues Nos 2 and 5 which concern legal matters and it passed a judgment and decree on 10-8-70 holding that the disputed joint holding be partitioned equally between the plaintiff and the defendants according to the entries in the record of rights and that Mst. Bhoori Bai widow of Prabhulal was not a necessary party to the present suit of partition of a joint holding under sec. 53 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Aggrieved by this order the defendants went in appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur who by his judgment and decree dated 6 5-71 rejected the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 10-8-70. The present second appeal has arisen against the last order.

We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and also perused the record.

The first point urged before us by the learned counsel for the appellants (defendants) is that Mst. Bhoori Bai was a necessary party to the present dispute and she was entitled to a share in the coparcenary property in dispute according to the Hindu Succession Act. He admits that a female could not ask for partition of a coparcenary property and claim her share therein but if male member of a joint Hindu family moves for partition a female could also claim her share therefrom. He places reliance on A I R. 1936 P. C. 20, A. L R. 1941 Nagpur 135 and A.I.R. 1962 Gujrat 68. He has also cited A. 1. R. 1928 All. 330 in support of his contention that when there is a partition amongst the Hindu son and grand son of a female the female is entitled to a share equal to that person as well as A.I.R. 1946 Nagpur 206 in support of the same contention. The learned counsel for the respondent (plaintiff) has replied that under sec. 53 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act there is provision of a joint agricultural holding between its co-tenants. In the case of co-tenants adverse possession cannot be presumed for until the partition

Click Here to Read the rest of this document