PUROHIT, M.—This is a second appeal under Section 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 against the judgment and decree dated 20.2.06 of Revenue Appellate Authority Ajmer passed in appeal No. 24/05/223.

2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the second appeal are that the respondent No. 1 filed a suit under Sections 88, 89 and 188 of the Act before Sub-Divisional Officer Kekri (Ajmer) for declaration of Khatedari rights in respect of the disputed land. The trial Court decreed the suit by its judgment dated 9.5.05; aggrieved against which the appellant-defendant filed first appeal under Section 223 of the Act before Revenue Appellate Authority Ajmer who by the impugned judgment dated 20.2.06 dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and decree dated 9.5.05 of the trial Court. Hence the second appeal.

3. During pendency of this second appeal, the appellant filed two applications, one under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) for taking on record jamabandi Svt. 2060-63 and a leaf of old account book (Bahi). Another application filed by the appellant is under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. for impleading State Bank of India Khawas as one of the respondents.

4. We have heard learned counsels of both the parties.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the trial Court has passed the decree dated 9.5.05 on the condition that the entry in revenue record would not be changed pursuant to the decree until the entire mortgage amount is paid to the concerned bank; as such bank becomes a necessary party and should be impleaded as a respondent under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC for which a separate application is filed. The learned counsel also pressed for taking on record a leaf (paga) from an old Bahi (Account book) allegedly belonging to deceased khatedar Nanda to prove the point that the deceased Kana- the husband of the appellant- was living with him as a sole successor. A copy of jamabandi Svt. 2060-63 is also sought to be taken on record to show change of the entry in compliance of the decree of the trial Court. It is further pleaded that the original khatedar- the deceased Nanda-adopted Kana (deceased) husband of the appellant defendant during his lifetime. Kana also wrote a document filed as Ex. D. 1 which shows that Nanda had given the disputed land to Kana during his lifetime. It is further argued that Kana carried out the last rites after death of Nanda. Oral evidence also confirmed that Kana was in the regular service to Nanda and as such was entitled to succeed to the disputed land of Nanda. The respondent-plaintiff never challenged mutation No. 282 of Village Farkiya by which the disputed land was mutated in the name of Kana after death of Nanda. Thereafter on the death of Kana another mutation No. 40 dated 5.6.95 was attested in favour of Hangami, the appellant-defendant and thus Hangami became khatedar tenant of the disputed land. These mutations, always remained unchallenged so the respondent-plaintiff is not entitled to conferment of any khatedari right in the disputed land, as such both the impugned judgments of the Courts below should be set aside.

6. Vehemently countering the argument of the appellant, the learned counsel for the respondent pleaded that the disputed land stood in the khatedari right of Nanda who was father of the respondent-plaintiff Sodra. The deceased Nanda had no other successor except his daughter Sodra, the plaintiff-respondent. So after the death of father Nanda, Mutation should have been attested in favour of his daughter Sodara and non Kana who was none to the deceased Nanda. Nanda never adopted Kana as his son. The alleged document Ex. D. 1) purported to be will or document showing intention ¼bPNk i=½ is neither of the two. This document Ex. D-1 is on a plain paper which is torn and incomplete. It is simply a part of letter which is not proved in evidence by its scribe or any of its attesting witnesses. If it is purported to be will it sh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document