SAHDEO Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order of the Board of Revenue dated 11-6-1974 dismissing the petitioner's Second Appeal.

(2.) The dispute is between Sahdeo and others, the petitioners and Brij Kishore, respondent No. 4 regarding title of the plots of the disputed land. In a correction of paper case moved on behalf of the respondent No. 4, by order of the S. D. O. dated 19-6-1956, the name of respondent No. 4 was re-corded over the disputed land. In that proceeding the father Of the petitioners, who was also a party in that case, filed a written statement admitting petitioners' possession from 1950. A suit for injunction was filed by the petitioners on the allegation that they are in possession challenging the order dated 19-6-1956 passed by the S. D. O. in the correction case on the ground of fraud. The suit was dismissed by the Munsif. The decree of the Munsif was affirmed by the District Judge. The petitioners filed a second appeal in the High Court and by order dated 30-10-1969 of this Court, the suit was dismissed on the ground that the petitioners were not in possession on the date of the suit and other matters regarding the fraudulant nature of the correction case was left open as the petitioners had in the meantime, filed the present suit in the Revenue Court giving rise to this writ petition for declaration and possession. The suit filed in the Revenue Court was challenged by the respondent No. 4 on the ground that the order in the correction case was validly passed by the S. D. O. on 19-6-1956. The petitioners father himself admitted the possession of respondent 4 from 1950 and no fraud was practiced. Both the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective cases. The trial court dismissed the suit with the finding that the plaintiffs are not in possession over the land in dispute since at least 1363F. On this finding it was held that the defendant has matured title as the suit was filed after 6 years. From the plaint, it appears that the suit was filed on 21-5-1963 equal to 1370F. The petitioners preferred an appeal against the order of the trial court, which was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner. The second appeal filed by the petitioners was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue. The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid orders before this Court.

(3.) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the admission of the petitioners' father made in the correction of paper case was not admissible in the regular suit, but it has been wrongly relied in this case. It was further urged that the lower appellate Court has not considered all the evidence adduced by the parties. Therefore, the finding of the lower appellate Court was vitiated by error of law. The Board of Revenue, without taking into consideration all these facts, illegally dismissed the Second Appeal.