RAGHUNATH Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant-appellant has preferred this special appeal against the impugned order dated 01.08.1997 passed by the learned Single judge in SB Civil Writ Petition No.299]/97 whereby the writ petition filed by the defendant was dismissed and the order of the Board of Revenue dated 30.1.1995 was upheld.

(2.) BRIEF relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that plaintiff- respondent No.3-Smt.Mangi Bai filed a suit for ejectment under Section 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") on 7.6.85 against the defendant in the Court of Sub divisional Officer, Kota with the averment that the land in dispute is of the khatedari of her brother deceased-Kedar, who in the life time of his father usufructuary mortgaged it in consideration of Rs.700/- about 9 years before in the month of Jeth' and in this regard a document (Tehrir) was executed which is in the possession of defendant. It was also averred that on the expiry of period of mortgage, the plaintiff requested the defendant several times to hand over the possession of the land in dispute to the plaintiff and she even offered to pay Rs.700/- to him but the defendant did not hand over the possession to her. It was further averred that after the expiry of period of mortgage, the possession of the defendant on the land in dispute is as a trespasser and he is liable to be evicted from it. It was also submitted that after the death of Kedar, the plaintiff being his sister is sole legal representative and successor and she is khatedar- tenant of the land, whereas the defendant has no title to it and the plaintiff having superior title is entitled to eject the defendant on the basis of her title. It was prayed by the plaintiff that a decree for ejectment may be passed and the defendant may be directed to hand over the possession to the plaintiff.

(3.) BOTH the parties in order to prove their respective case produced oral as well as documentary evidence and the trial court after hearing the parties decreed the suit vide judgment dated 12.1.87. The learned trial court arrived at a conclusion that the defendant has failed to prove that the land in dispute was transferred to him in the year 1965 and he is in possession of the land in dispute. The trial court also.held that the possession of the defendant is as a trespasser and he is liable to be ejected. The objection regarding limitation was also rejected.