MODI, J.—This is a second appeal by the defendant Ramkaran in a suit for declaration and injunction.

2. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are like this :

A suit was instituted by the appellant in a revenue court for declaration and injunction against the respondents in respect of certain agricultural lands situate at villages Harbhagatpura and Indokhiya The trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal by the appellant, the appellate court set aside the trial courts judgment and decreed the suit. The respondents, who are seven in number, went in second appeal to the Board of Revenue. The latter allowed the appeal, restored the trial courts judgment and dismissed the suit. The appellant thereafter filed a writ petition in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the decision of the Board of Revenue. All the seven respondents were impleaded as non-petitioners in the writ petition. The notices of the writ petition were served on all the respondents. One of the seven respondents, namely, Hardev engaged Mr. C L. Agarwal, Advocate, to represent him in the writ petition vide Vakalatnama Ex. 1. None of the remaining respondents engaged any lawyer to represent them in the writ petition. Shri Kishen, respondent No. 1, signed the reply to the writ petition. That reply is Ex. A/1 on the record and it bears signatures of Shrikishen as well as Mr. C.L. Agarwal on behalf of all the seven respondents though Mr. Agarwal was engaged for respondent No. 7 Hardev alone. Shrikishen, respondent No. 1, also filed his affidavit in support of his reply to the writ petition. That affidavit is marked Ex. A/2 on the record. The writ petition came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court on 30-8-62. Mr. P.N. Datta, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellant Ramkaran, and Mr. C.L Agarwal appeared on behalf of the opposite party. The plea of the respondent Shrikishen before the revenue court was that the lands in dispute were mortgaged in his favour and Chandra on 2-2-42 by the father of the appellant and, later on, those lands were sold to him on 14-8-47 for Rs. 945/-. In support of the above plea, Shrikishan produced mortgage and sale-deeds before the revenue court. Dealing with the writ petition, their lordships vide judgment dated 30-8 62 (Ex. 3) held that the sale dated 14-8-47 was void as it was made in contravention of the provisions of sec. 16(1) of the Jaipur Tenancy Act. As regards the mortgage-deed dated 2-2-42, their lordships held that a khatedar tenant was competent to alienate his land by way of mortgage in certain circumstances Having arrived at the above findings, their lordships disposed of the writ petition in these words :

"We would have sent back the case for adjudication of the liability under the mortgage, but both the learned counsel have agreed that the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant a sum of Rs. 300 as mortgage money and that thereupon the land which is subject to mortgage shall be delivered to the plaintiff free of encumbrance. The learned counsel agree that the plaintiff is entitled to get back 7 bighas and 9 biswas of land in khasra No. 19/1 in village Harbhagatpura which is not subject to any mortgage and that he is further entitled to get back 9 bighas and 2 biswas of land in that village and 8 bighas and 9-1/3 biswas of land in village Indokhiya on payment of the aforesaid sum of Rs. 300. It may be mentioned that the land in village Indokhiya was held on a joint lease by the father of the plaintiff along with Chandra and Shrikishan. The share of Chandra is said to have been trans ferred to Shrikishan subsequently. Out of the 25 bighas and 8 biswas of land in village Indokhiya, the piaintiff is thus entitled to get onethird share leaving the two-third share with defendant Shri Kishan. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the decision of the Board of Revenue is set aside and the case is remanded to the Board of Revenue wish a direction to determine the ca

Click Here to Read the rest of this document