MANA Vs. DHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DURING the pendency of the second appeal in the Board of Revenue, an application was filed by the counsel for the respondents that since Dhanna respondent died on 21-970 and no application for bringing his legal representative on record having been filed within 90 days, the appeal automatically abates. On behalf of the appellant it was contended that since on 1-5-70 a compromise had been effected between the parties which was presented duly attested in the Board, it was not necessary to bring his legal representatives on record. It was further stated that in the compromise Dhanna respondent admitted the appellant as the Khatedar tenant of the land in dispute and further acquiesced that the appellant will continue in possession of the same.

(2.) ARGUMENTS were heard on behalf of the parties on this issue. The learned counsel for the respondents stated that a suit u/s. 183 of the Raj. T. Act was filed by the present appellant Mana against Gordhan, Dhanna, Veerma, Jasdan, Devidan & Laxmidan. This suit was decreed by the trial court on 30-7-66. As Gordan defendant died during this period, his legal representatives joined Dhanna & Veerma in filing an appeal against this decree before the R. A. A and the other three defendants viz Jasdan, Devidan & Laxmidan were joined as pro forma respondents. The R. A. A. accepted the appeal and remanded the case to the trial court. Second appeal before the Board of Revenue was filed by Mana alone against the order of the R. A. A. On 1-5-70 a compromise application was filed by the advocate for the appellant which bore thumb impressions and photos of Dhanna & Veerma respondents which was attested by the Dy. Registrar, Board of Revenue the same day. Although he (Shri S. N. Pareek) was attorney for both Dhanna & Veerma which was never withdrawn, another power of attorney was presented in favour of Shri Sayarchand on 1-570 who identified the respondents Dhanna & Veerma. The learned counsel argued that he had no instructions from them for compromise.

(3.) ON the above principles, we now examine the pleadings of the parties. A suit under sec. 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was filed by the appellant against six defendants including deceased Dhanna. In the prayer it was stated that the possession over Khasra numbers 234 & 237 may be got restored from the defendants In para 5g of the plaint it was specifically mentioned that defendants No. 1 to 3 (Gordhan, Dhanna & Veerma) have dispossessed the plaintiffs. The decree of the trial court in clear terms states that the plaintiffs shall be given possession by ejecting the defendants who were the trespassers. This decree, therefore, is joint and indivisible.