GANESHARAM Vs. KESHRICHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal against the appellate judgment and decree of the learned Additional Commissioner Bikaner, dated 17. 1. 1961, heard ex-parte today, because of the absence of the respondent despite notice, deserves to be accepted only on the ground that the appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned trial court lay to the District Judge and not to the learned Additional Commissioner.

(2.) THE suit was preferred by the respondent Keshrichand under sec. 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. An issue "had the defendant acquired proprietory rights over the disputed land through adverse possession", was framed in the case and referred for decision to the Munsif Hanumangarh. This issue was decided by the learned Munsif and the learned trial court based its decision on the basis of the decision given by the learned Munsif. Vide sec. 239 (4) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, an appeal from a decree of a revenue court passed in a suit in which an issue involving a question of proprietory right has been decided by a civil court under sub-sec. (2) thereof, lies to the civil court having jurisdiction to hear appeals from such a civil court. THE learned Additional Commissioner, therefore, had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the appeal that he has done. In view of this mandatory provision of law, a substantial error and defect in the procedure provided by this Act has been committed by the learned Additional Commissioner and his judgment and decree deserve to be set aside in this second appeal only on this ground.