HEERA LAL Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful petitioner in the writ petition is the appellant in this appeal. The appellant filed the writ petition to quash the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 28-6-74 (Annex. 5), and to restore the judgment of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Udaipur dated 18-12-1968 (Annex. 3) and to dismiss the suit of the respondent No. 4 Shanker Lal (Plaintiff).

(2.) The dispute in this appeal lies in a very narrow compass. The facts found by the Courts below have not been disputed before us. Before proceeding further to deal with the facts of this case it is better to refer to the family tree. It is seen from the above family tree that Ganga Ram had three sons Prithvi Raj, Girdhari and Bhagwan. Prithvi Raj's son is Dev Kishan who is petitioner No. 1 - Defendant No. 1 in the writ petition. Girdhari had two sons, Heera Lal (petitioner No. 2 in the writ petition) and Gulab (respondent No. 3 in the writ petition). Bhagwan, the third son of Ganga Ram died in the year 1910 leaving behind his widow Champa. On 12-12-1959, Champa adopted Shanker Lal, the fourth respondent herein-plaintiff in the suit.

(3.) Shanker Lal filed the suit for division of holding on the allegation that the suit land originally belonged to their ancester Ganga Ram and it has devolved on the parties who were co-tenants. However, after the death of Bhagwan his two brothers got the land in dispute entered in their own names and during the life time of Smt. Champa widow of Bhagwan they continued to put her off on the pretext that she was a widow and whenever she made adoption Bhagwan's 1/3rd share would be got entered in the name of the adopted son. However, even after his adoption Prithvi Raj and Girdhari put Shanker Dal Lal and his mother off on the pretext that they would give possession of their 1/3rd share when Shanker Lal and his mother off on the pretext that they would give possession of their 1/3rd share when Shanker Lal comes up of age but when they did not do so even after Shanker Lal attained majority it compelled Shanker Lal to file this suit for division of holding. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. the petitioners contested the suit. However the defendant No. 3 admitted the plaintiff's claim.