Honble TATIA, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This writ petition has been preferred against the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 10.12.1997 by which the Board of Revenue has allowed the appeal preferred by respondent Shanker Lal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court dated 26.12.1990.

3. Brief facts of the case which came on the record are that there were three co-sharers namely, Ghadsi Ram, Mansha Ram and Chunni Lal in the agriculture land of khasra No. 202 measuring 56 bighas 19 biswas situated in Village Rohi of Circle Jaitpura of Tehsil Suratgarh. Ghadsi Ram sold his share in the property, which is 1/3rd, to defendant No. 2 – Raji Ram s/o Chunni Lal. Plaintiff Mansha Ram impleaded his co-sharer Ghadsi Ram as party along with Raji Ram as defendant No. 2 and also impleaded legal heirs of Chunni Lal as defendants No. 3 to 6.

4. In the plaint, the plaintiff alleged that Mansha Ram had 1/3rd share, Raji Ram got 1/3rd share and the rest of the land is in the share of legal heirs of Chunni Lal. It is stated that because of the dispute between the plaintiff and defendants, the plaintiff wants to get his share determined and separated by meets and bounds. The suit was filed on 20.8.1987. the suit was decreed on the basis of consent written statement vide judgment and decree dated 26.12.1990.

5. Said judgment and decree dated 26.12.1990 was challenged by respondent Shanker Lal by preferring appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner camp Sri Ganganagar. The contention of respondent Shanker Lal was that in fact, Chunni Lal sold his entire 1/3rd land vide registered sale deed dated 22.4.1958 to Shanker Lal. Since then respondent Shanker Lal is in possession of the property. It is alleged that the plaintiff deliberately, without impleading Shanker Lal in the suit, obtained decree for partition of the property. In support of his plea, appellant Shanker Lal placed on record mutation No. 125 opened on 20.11.1962 whereby the name of Shanker Lal was entered in the revenue record. Shanker Lal placed on record copies of Dhal Baanch of Samwat Years 2019, 2020 and 2022 to 2025 showing the entry of name of Shanker Lal for 1/3rd share in the property and to prove payment of land revenue deposited in the name of Shanker Lal.

6. The first appellate court observed that though the name of Shanker Lal was entered by mutation No. 125 in the revenue record and in the revenue record, mutation order as well as in Dhal Baanch, the name of Shanker Lal is there but the said name was deleted by subsequent mutation No. 168/169 dated 12.3.1986 and again name of original khatedar tenants Mansha Ram, Chunni Lal and Raji Ram were entered in the revenue record of samwat year 2042 (corresponding English year 1986). Therefore, the first appellate court held that Shanker Lal may file a separate suit for establishing his tenancy right in the property in dispute but in view of the fact that at the time of filing of the suit, the names of plaintiff and defendants were recorded in the revenue record, therefore, the suit filed against the defendants alone was maintainable. Therefore, in view of the above reasons, the appeal of Shanker Lal was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 20.11.1991.

7. Shanker Lal preferred second appeal before the Board of Revenue against the aforementioned two judgments. It was stated that once the name of Shanker Lal was entered in the revenue record, then that could have been cancelled by the order of competent authority and new mutation entry could have been opened in accordance with law by the order of the competent authority. The Board of Revenue also observed that when the property was transferred by registered sale deed, then the rights of the transferor stand extinguished with the registration of the document and, therefore, merely on the basis of any wrong entry obtained subsequently and by deletion of name of Shanker Lal, Shanker Lals rights have not been affected in any manner. In v

Click Here to Read the rest of this document