RAMDEVA Vs. RAMSUKHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed against the order dated 20.12.2011, passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer setting aside the order dated 05.07.2008, passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (hereinafter 'RAA') in appeal No.4/2008 and restoring the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2008, passed by the Assistant Collector, Boli, District Sawaimadhopur dismissing the suit for correction of revenue entries and permanent injunction filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs (hereinafter 'plaintiffs') against the respondents-defendants Nos.1 to 7 (hereinafter the defendants).

(2.) THE facts of the case are that one Kishnya and Ratna were real brothers. Kishnya was the recorded khatedar of land in khasra Nos.1, 2, 31, 32 admeasuring 18 bighas 3 bishwa in village Sarwari, Tehsil Boli. Kishnya died issue-less. Following his death, his brother's son Kesra, the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs at that point of time got himself mutated as the khatedar in place of the deceased Kishnya. Subsequently, by consent of all the three brothers, namely Kesra, Ramsukha and Birdya all natural born sons of Ratna on a joint application before the Tehsildar stating that they were entitled to in equal measure to the land in deceased Kishnya's khatedari, revenue entries were made and the names of Kesra, Ramsukha and Birdya were mutated in the revenue records in equal measures in respect of the khatedari land of the deceased Kishnya on or about 14.02.1983.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 05.07.2008 upsetting and setting aside the judgment and degree dated 31.03.2008, passed by the Assistant Collector, Boli, the defendants in the suit Ramsukha and the legal representatives of his brother Birdya, who had in the meantime expired, approached the Board of Revenue, Ajmer by way of a second appeal under Section 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. The Board of Revenue considered the entire facts and evidence on record and held that the RAA had proceeded without any evidence on record to upset without just cause detailed findings on all issues in the suit based on evidence by the Assistant Collector, Boli. It was held that the order dated 05.07.2008, passed by the RAA was contrary to the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC as the appellate court had not adjudicated the appeal before it issue-wise. It was further held that the entire suit laid by the plaintiffs being based on question of purported adoption of Kesra by deceased Kishnya was not amenable to the jurisdiction of a revenue court as the question of adoption was a matter for the civil courts to adjudicate. The Board of Revenue further noted that a joint application has been made before the Tehsildar by Kesra, Ramsukha and Birdya, which was exhibited before the Assistant Collector, indicative of mutation dated 14.02.1983 having been made on the consent of the parties in the course of revenue campaign and further that following the mutation dated 14.02.1983 in equal measure between Kesra, Ramsukha and Birdya, the land in issue had been mortgaged to the SBBJ Bank to obtain agricultural loans by each of the three beneficiaries. So holding the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 20.12.2011, set aside the order dated 05.07.2008, passed by the RAA and restored the judgment and degree dated 31.03.2008, passed by the Assistant Collector.