INDER SINGH Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ application by Indersingh under Article 227 of the Constitution against a judgment of the Board of Revenue dated the 4th March, 1959, reversing the judgments and decrees of the sub-Divisional Officer, Hanumangarh, and the Commissioner, Bikaner, and dismissing the Petitioner's suit for partition of certain agricultural land, which had been decreed by both courts below.

(2.) THE material facts which have led to this application may shortly be stated as follows. THE dispute relates to Khata No. 25 comprising Khasra Nos. 34, 33, 36, 54, 67, 68, 75 and 104 and Khata No. 27 comprising Khasra Nos. 115 and 132 situate in Mouza Chandra, Tehsil Hanumangarh. THE following pedigree table will serve to explain the relationship between the contesting parties: - Buta Singh Nokha Singh Prem Singh Gajjan Singh Lal Singh Ran Singh Karan Singh Shri Chand Sampuransingh Jageirsingh Vichitra Singh Hukam singh (dead) Mst. Dalip Kaur Hazursingh Butasingh Kakasingh Diputsingh Sundersingh THE petitioner Indersingh was the plaintiff, and respondents Nos. 2 to 11 were defendants, in the suit out of which this writ application arises. THE plaintiff's case was that Khata No. 25 measuring 207 Bighas odd was made cultivable by his grandfather Premsingh around S. 1963 (corresponding to 1906 A. D.) and that Khata No. 27 Bighas odd was brought under cultivation for the first time by the said Premsingh and his brother Gajjansingh who is the father of respondents Sampuran Singh and Jagir Singh. Consequently, Khata No. 25 was entered in the revenue records in the name of Premsingh, and Khata No. 27 was recorded in the joint names of Premsingh Gajjansingh upto Smt. 1966 (equal to 1909 A. D.) THE petitioner's case further was that on the 13th June, 1909, these Khatas qua Prem Singh were mutated in the names of Lalsingh (father of the contesting defendant Hazur Singh) and Shri Chand and Karamsingh, being sons of the said Premsingh, in the settlement records and somehow the name of the petitioner's father Ramsingh was left out. THE petitioner's case further was that Lalsing, the eldest son of Premsingh was in charge of the management of the agricultural lands in question and Premsingh and his son Ransingh, grandfather and father respectively of the petitioner Indersingh used mostly to live in village Dhola Tehsil Fazalka, District Ferozpur in the Punjab. It was also alleged that Lalsingh during his life-time continued to give the income of the petitioner's share with respect to the land in dispute to Inder Singh and his father Ransingh deducting thereout the dues payable to the State. Lalsingh died round about the partition of India in 1947, and a few years afterwards, his sons Hazursingh and others declined to give the petitioner his share of the income of the lands in question. Consequently, the petitioner brought the suit, out of which this writ application arises, for possession of his share by partition on the 5th September, 1952 in the court of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hanumangarh. It is remarkable that Vichitra Singh, son of Karamsingh, who was one of the four sons of Premsingh, and Sampuran Singh son of Gajjansingh who was a brother of Premsingh, filed their written statements admitting the plaintiff's claim. Hazur Singh and his brother Sunder Singh sons of Lalsingh filed a joint written statement resisting the petitioner's suit. THE only other person who contested the suit was Shrichand son of Premsingh. So far as the other defendants belonging to the family of Premsingh and Gajjan Singh are concerned, they did not raise any contest whatsover. THE line of defence of the contesting defendants was briefly this. THEir defence, in effect was that the lands in dispute had been brought under cultivation for the first time by Lalsingh, Karamsingh and Shrichand so far as Khata No. 25 was concerned and by these persons and Gajjansingh so far as Khata No. 27 was concerned, and that neither Premsingh nor Ramsingh took any part in this but as Premsingh being the head of his family was, alive, his name was got entered as Khatedar. It was further contended that subsequently in June, 1909, Premsingh himself had got the names of his sons Lalsingh, Karamsingh and Shrichand mutated in the revenue records in his place and the petitioner's father Ransingh was excluded from both mutation entries. It was further contended that neither the petitioner nor his father was ever in possession of the Khata numbers in question nor had they ever been given any share out of the income of these. Consequently, it was prayed that the plaintiff's suit deserved to be dismissed. THE trial court decreed the plaintiff's suit allowing him 1/4th share in Khata No. 25 and 1/8th in Khata No. 27 which decree was also upheld by the Commissioner, Bikaner. THE contesting defendants then went in appeal to the Board of Revenue. THE Board by its judgment dated the 4th March, 1959, reversed the judgments and decrees of the two courts below, and dismissed the plaintiff's suit with costs throughout. It is against this decision that the petitioner has filed the present writ application and prays that we should set it aside in the exercise of our certiorari jurisdiction as it is vitiated by gross and patent errors of law.