PANKAJ, Member – This is second appeal filed u/Sec. 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (in short ``the Act) against the judgment and decree passed by Revenue Appellate Authority, Hanumangarh dated 22.8.95, by which the first appeal preferred by the appellants was dismissed, although decree of the trial Court was modified to the extent that area of land in comparison of old Khasra No. 152 and 206 area 102.07 kutcha bighas will be 61 pucca bighas and the lower court and Tehsildar, No ar was directed to enquire into the matter with remaining excess area of 14 bighas.

(2). The facts giving rise to this appeal may be briefly stated that the respondents No. 1 to 4 filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in the court of S.D.O., Nohar with the averment that the agricultural land, old Khasra No. 152 area 39.15 bighas and khasra No. 206 area 62.13 bigas situated at Vill. Badbirana Tehsil Nohar was in cultivatory possession of Kishna alone. The plaintiffs and defendants No. 2 to 4 are heirs of late Shri Kishna. The above mentioned land was recorded in the recent settlement as khasra No. 364 area 18.18 bighas and Khasra No. 515 area 56.03 bighas. The defendant No. 1 never cultivated the suit land, even then the defendant No.1 got his name entered in the revenue record for the suit land to the extent of half share, therefore, the plaintiffs filed suit for declaration that land Kishna was sole khatedar tenant of the suit land and sought correction of entries by deleting the name of defendant Padma. The defendant contested the suit and alleged that the suit land was in joint cultivatory possession of Kishna and Padma and defendant No. 1 Padma was khatedar tenant of half share of the suits land. It was also stated that Kishna was elder brother of Padma and he was Karta of family, therefore, name of Kishna was entered in Khasra Girdawaries of certain years, whereas the suit land was in joint possession of both the brothers. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed following six issues:-

(i) Whether the land situated at Vill. Badbirana Teh, Nohar bearing old Khasra No. 152 area 39.15 bighas and khasra No. 206 area 62.13 bighas, new Khasra No. 364 area 18.18 and 515 area 56.03 bighas total area 75.01 bighas is in cultivatory possession and recorded in the name of plaintiffs and defendants No. 2 to 4.

(ii) Whether the defendant has no right or share- in the above land and plaintiffs are entitled to get the entries in the name of defendant No. 1 deleted from the revenue record.

(iii) Whether the suit land was in joint possession and self- acquired of both Kishna and Padma Ram.

(iv) Whether the suit land was in joint cultivation of both the parties and the suit was not maintainable without seeking relief of ejectment.

(v) Whether the plaintiffs suit was ambiguous without furnishing better particulars.

(vi) Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from bringing the present suit.

(3). After recording evidence of both the parties the learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs and plaintiffs and defendants No. 2 to were declared khatedar tenants of the suit land and name of defendant was ordered to be deleted from the revenue record. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court, the appellants filed first appeal before Revenue Appellate Authority, Hanumangarh which was dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree. Hence this second appeal.

(4). We have heard the learned counsel for the both the parties and perused the record.

(5). The learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the appellants filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, but the learned first appellate court did not decide the application. The documents produced along with the application have been referred in the judgment but no finding has been recorded on these documents. It is further contended that the learned trial Court has given finding on issue No. 1 in cursory manner and evidence adduced

Click Here to Read the rest of this document