RAJMAL Vs. RANGLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal under sec. 224 Rajasthan Tenancy Act against the decree and judgment, dated 1-10 63, of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur. Deceased Rajmal, the husband of Shrimati Anoop Kunwar whose name has now been entered as appellant in place of that of Rajmal,instituted a suit in the court of the S. D. O. Nimbahera in the year 1959 for a declaration that the land mentioned below are Khatedari lands of the plaintiff and for a temporary injunction restraining the respondent defendant Ranglal, who is brother of deceased plaintiff Rajmal, from interfering with the possession of the deceased plaintiff or dispossessing him. The suit was in respect of khasra numbers 1601, 1602, 1603 and 1604 measuring respectively 14 biswas, 1 bigha 3 biswas,7 biswas 2 bighas and 2 biswas in all 4 bighas and 6 biswas of village Badi Sadri, district Chittorgarh. The plaintiff had contended that these lands were in his khatedari and he was in possession of these lands and that since 28th March, 1959, the defendant was creating trouble to illegally take possession of these lands and was denying the title of the plaintiff. The court of first instance by its judgment dated 28th June, 1963, decree the plaintiff's suit holding that deceased plaintiff was khatedar of the lands in dispute and was in possession of the lands. The court ordered that the plaintiff was entitled to a permanent injunction.

(2.) THE defendant filed this appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned S. D. O. and the learned Revenue Appellate Authority sitting in appeal by this judgment dated 1-10 63, accepted the appeal and set said the judgment and decree of the lower court-

(3.) THE defendant-respondent has lead oral and documentary evidence to prove his contention that he was in possession of the land in dispute as a result of the partition. Ex. A-l, Ex. A-6 and the statements of P. W. 1 Gendalal and D. Ws. Rama, Matarlal, Bhanwarlal and Lalu clearly show that the plaintiff hand no locus-standi, so far as possession is concerned, at the time of the suit and the land was in the possession of the defendant respondent since well before the date of the institution of the suit. THE plaintiff made a half hearted attempt to prove his possession by filing Exhibit 36 and examining P. W.-5 Dalla. While Ex. A-l to A 6 are on proper stamps, Ex. 36 is on plain paper and this witness P. W. 5 Dalla admits in his cross-examination that the land was in possession of defendant Rang Lal. Moreover, this document Ex. 36 is dated 19-1-60. In other words this document relates to a period after the filing of the suit and would not even if it were correct, help the plaintiff in the present suit.