MANGLA Vs. BHANWAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff-respondent Bhanwar Lal filed a suit for declaration of khatedari rights and permanent injunction against the present appellants in the court of the S. D. O. , Beawar on 16 10-67 in respect of khasra numbers 156 ( 1 bigha 10-1/2 biswa) and 158 (2 bighas 15-1/2 biswa ) of village Thikrana Gujran, Tehsil Beawar. It was stated in the plaint that the cause of action arose on 16-9-67 and 8 10 67 when the opposite parties tried to destroy the standing crop and threatened to oust him In their written statement the the defendants said the plaint was not clear, that the plaintiff had had the revenue records altered in his favour and did not even belong to the village and that the land in dispute was common land.

(2.) THE S. D. O. framed four issues, the first being whether the plaintiff had cul-tivatory possession of the land in the capacity of a khatedar tenant and the second whether the defendants were trying to evict him unlawfully and by force. THE third issue, as to whether the plaint was incoherent, was not pressed by the defendants and the fourth related to relief. Because the defendants had in their written statement alleged that the records had been tampered with, they produced as a witness a patwari from Beawar tehsil along with the original record. On examina-tion of this record (khasra girdawaries) the learned S. D. O. came to the conclusion that the entries relating to the cultivatory possession of the plaintiff in St. 2015 and 2016 were in the form of over-writing and even the copy of the mutation which had been exhibited had interpolations. THEse records being gravely suspect, and there being no other evidence of that period to support the plaintiff, the S. D. O held that his claim to be declared a khatedar on the basis of the record of St. 2015 when the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was made applicable to Ajmer, was not established. Issue No. 1 was decided accordingly and because the plaintiff was found to have no right to the land the second issue was also decided against him. In appeal the Revenue Appellate Authority held that the plaintiff's title to khasra number 158 was established from the record but not that of khasra number 156 He, therefore, set aside the judgment of the S. D. O. and partly decreed the suit. Aggrieved by this, Mangla, etc. have come up in second appeal