TOLA Vs. TULSIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit u/ss. 88 & 89 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was filed by the plaintiff-applicants in the court of S. D. O. , Jalore for a declaration that the land covered by khasra number 294 & 298 measuring 30 bighas & 3 biswas situated in village Sankarana was in their khatedari and prayed that necessary corre-ction in the land records may be made to the same effect. The suit was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that the defendants-respondents were members of scheduled caste and except the bald statement of Tulsia there is no other evidence to support the possession of the plaintiffs. It was further held that the present suit had been filed by the plaintiffs to bye-pass the bar of transfer or sale on members of scheduled castes in favour of non-scheduled caste persons as provided u/s. 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The learned R. A. A. in appeal upheld the above view of the trial court and rejected the appeal. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the two courts below, the present appeal has been filed before us.

(2.) WE have heard the counsel for the parties and examined the record. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that sec. 42 of the Act has no relevance in the present suit. The defendants were the halts of the plaintiffs and not the Khatedars. The continued possession of the plaintiffs had been provided both by oral and documentary evidence. He stated that the khasra girdawari entries of St. 2013 & 2014 prove the cultivation of the plaintiffs which is further supported by the oral evidence of the defendant No. 1 Tulsia. He invited our attention to the affidavits filed by the defendants to the effect that they were balis of the plaintiffs. He stated that the defendants have not even filed their written statement and the trial court passed ex-parte proceedings on 6-2-64. All these show that the defendants have admitted their claim. From this premise the learned counsel argued that the two courts below have, therefore, committed an illegality in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs without examining the oral and documentary evidence which was clearly in favour of the plaintiffs.