Honble AGRAWAL, M.—This is an appeal under Section 224 of the Rajaslhdn Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the judgment and decree dated 6.8.04 or Revenue Appdlate Authority Jaipur passed in appeal No. 257/0 I by which he dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment dated 23.8.2001 of Assistant Collector, Chomu passed in case No. 181/89.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that the disputed old khasra No. 385, 386, 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425 and 426 area measuring 18 bighas 18 biswas with corresponding new khasra Nos. 733, 734, 892, 893 and 894 which were further convened into khasra No. 121, 122, 277, 278, 279 and 280 total area 7.71 hectares located in village Pratappura of Tehsil Amber in Jaipur District stood in the joint khatedari tenancy of plaintiffs-appellants and defendant-respondents No.1 and 3 with equal rights. According to Plaintiff-appellants, Hanuman - the respondent No. 1 - a recorded co-tenant of the land in question, relinquished his share in favour of plaintiff- appellants on 21.3.87 through a registered deed of relinquishment. Subsequently Hanuman (respondent No 1) sold the same land to respondent No.2 through registered sale deed. Plaintiff appellants filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant-respondents in the Court of Assistant Collector, Chomu, who by his decision dated 23.8.2001 dismissed the suit mainly on the ground that tenancy rights cannot be transferred by a khatedar tenant through a deed of relinquishment. Aggrieved against this decision of Assistant Collector, plaintiff-appellants filed an appeal before Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur who by his decision dated 6.8.2004 dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of Assistant Collector. Aggrieved against this impugned decision dated 6.8.2004 of Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur, the instant second appeal is preferred.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the respondent No.1 who is the recorded khatedar of the disputed land has relinquished his interest in the disputed land in favour of the appellants through a registered deed of relinquishment executed on 21.3.1987. Thus, the tenancy rights of respondent No.1 stand extinguished and the same are transferred to the appellants. It is argued that the disputed land is ancestral land. So a recorded co-tenant can relinquish his share in favour of other co-tenants. It was also argued that lower Court erred in not recognizing transfer of tenancy through relinquishment deed even though the deed of relinquishment is a registered document. Learned counsel cited RBJ (5) 1998 page 407 and 29 in support of his contention. It was also argued that under Section 63 of the Act al though the khatedari rights are not transferred but the interest in the land of the executor of the deed of relinquishment become extinguished and thus by implication tenancy rights get vested in the person in whose favour rights are relinquished. It was also argued that the trial Court did not give decision issue-wise, although nine issues were framed in the case.

5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants and caretl1lly studied the impugned judgments of both the lower Courts and perused the record and document available on the file.

6. The main plea of the appellants is that the respondent No. 1 Hanuman who is a recorded co-tenant of the land ill question has relinquished his tenancy rights in favour of the appellants and as such the appellants have become khatedar tenants of the land. Learned counsel for the appellants has not cited any provision under the Act that tenancy rights can be transferred ill favour of any person through a deed of relinquishment. Chapter-IV or the Act contains detailed provisions for transfer of tenancy rights from Sections 38 to 53 - which comprise inter alia devolution, transfer, exchange and division of te

Click Here to Read the rest of this document