MATHURA LAL Vs. MANGI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal against the judgment and decree passed in first appeal by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota on 18-8-1965, whereby the trial court's judgment and decree dated 30-5 64 rejecting the suit brought forth by the plaintiff appellant Mathuralal under sec. 53 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act (hereinafter called the Act) read with secs. 88, 188 and 183 of the Act, for division of holding, declaration, injunction and ejectment was upheld.

(2.) THE facts and circumstances leading to the instant appeal are that plaitiff-appellant and Kanwarlal deceased father of the defendant-respondents were real brothers. THE property and affairs of the family were jointly held and managed. This Kanwarlal died, as averred in the plaint, sometime in 1939 (16 years before the filing of the suit on 8-1-1955 ). THE affairs of the family continued to be managed jointly. THE family's agricultural holding comprised of lands in different villages Digod, Dobdi, Bhoolaheda and Hingi, were allegedly partitioned between the members of the family on 8-6-1951 half and half between the plaintiff on the one hand and the defendants on the other and the parties got possession of their respective share in the lands in accordance with a list drawn (Ex - P-5) for the purpose and cultivated the same. THE plaintiff remained in possession of his share in smt. 2008-2009, but at the close of smt. 2009 (1952 A. D.), respondents forcibly took over possession of some part of plaintiff's share plaintiff continued to hold the remaining lands. Plaintiff had apprehension of these lands also being usurped by the respondents who were allegedly active in attaining this end. Respondent Mangilal despite persuasion was for no ostensible reason harassing the plaintiff and refused to give up possession of lands so illegally and forcibly held. This Mangilal respondent also instituted proceedings against the plaintiff under sec. 145, Cr. P. C. where-under, possession of the suit lands was ordered to be retained by the respondents. Hence the plaintiff's suit which was rejected and decreed in favour of the respondents was sustained by the court of first appeal.