Honble CHAUHAN, J.–The instant writ petition has been filed for setting aside the judgments and orders dated 24.4.85 passed by the trial Court and 19.1.2001 passed by the Board of Revenue and for up-holding and restoring the judgment and order of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 27.5.93.

(2). The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that respondents No.5, 5/1 and 16, who are the sons and widow of Deepa Ram, filed Suit No. 50/79 in the Court of the Assistant Collector under Section 53 and 88 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short, ``the Act, 1955) for partition. The total land involved in the case was 81 Bighas and they claimed 1/3 share in the property and also restoration of possession on the said land. The trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and order dated 24.4.85 (Annx. 1). Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the defendant-respondents approached the Appellate Authority, which allowed the appeal vide judgment and order dated 27.5.93 (Annx. 2), against which an appeal was preferred before the Board of Revenue by the plaintiff-respondents, which has been allowed vide judgment and order dated 19.1.2001 (Annx. 3). Hence this petition.

(3). The trial Court had framed nine issues and after appreciating the entire evidence, reached the conclusion that Deepa, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent-plaintiff was not known for last 20-25 years and, thus, was presumed to be dead. The land in dispute had been the joint family ancestral property, in which Deepa had 1/3 share. It also rejected the contention of the petitioner-defendants that 28 Bighas of land had first time been made cultivable by Bhura-father of Rekha Ram and, thus, no body else had any share in it. The suit was decreed by a well reasoned judgment, holding specifically that plaintiff- respondents were entitled to 1/3 share in the land in dispute. The Revenue Appellate Authority set-aside the said judgment and order re-appreciating the evidence and reversing the findings on factual issues. The Appellate Authority reached the conclusion that so far as 28 Bighas of land was concerned, it was self- acquired property of Bhura-father of Rekha, and, therefore, no other person had share in it. Even otherwise, Rekha had acquired the title in the property by way of adverse possession. The Board of Revenue reconsidered the case and came to the conclusion that petitioner-defendants, particularly Rekha Ram, inspite of several opportunities, neither got examined himself nor did he examine any other witness, nor produced any documentary evidence to prove that 28 Bighas of the land belonged to his father Bhura Ram exclusively. It was not even suggested to the witnesses by the counsel for the petitioner-defendants that 28 Bighas of land was made first time cultivable by Bhura Ram. The Halqua Patwari was not asked, even by way of suggestion, whether 28 Bighas land was ever remained as ``Nautod land of Bhura Ram and he was having exclusive possession thereof. In view of the fact that neither the petitioner-defendants examined themselves nor examined any other person to prove the said factum, the Board of Revenue recorded the finding that the Appellate Authority ought not to have reversed the judgment of the trial Court on this issue and there was nothing on record before the Appellate Court to show that the land was in exclusive possession of the petitioner- defendants. As the respondent-plaintiffs were minor on the date of presumed death of their father and the widow, respondent No.6, was an illiterate rustic village-woman, the petitioner-defendants had taken an undue advantage of the situation and neither gave the land of their share to them nor did they allow them to have any share in the crops. It further held that question of adverse possession in family property did not stand proved and thus the judgment and order of the Appellate Authority was bad in law.

(4). Adverse possession means a hostile possession, i.e. possession in denial of the title

Click Here to Read the rest of this document