PRABHU Vs. PREMRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit was filed by the plaintiff-appellant Prabhu before the Sub- Divisional Officer, Jetaran in 1964 under sec. 89, 92a and 188 and 53 Rajasthan Tenancy Act for declaration of khatedari rights, injunction and partition between himself and the defendants No. 3 to 6 in respect of khasra Nos. 17, 18 and 21 comprising a total area of about 141 bighas. The plaintiff alleged that he was a sub-tenant of the defendant Mangal for 22 years and by operation of law he became a khatedar under Sec. 19 Rajasthan Tenancy Act and that the defendant was trying to eject him. Reference was also made to a compromise dated 27 8-64 arrived at between the plaintiff and his co-tenants, the said defendants No. 3 to 6 agreeing that the said land may be partitioned between them in equal shares. The defendants' case was that the plaintiff was not their sub-tenant in samvat 2012, but from samvat 2013, land measuring 66 bighas 10 biswas (and not the total area of 141 bighas) was in the plaintiff's cultivation with other defendants. The rest of the land was cultivated by the defendants themselves. The trial Court framed four issues and found that the plaintiff with other defendants was cultivating the entire land since Samvat 2013 and was, therefore, not entitled to khatedari rights but only to injunction. He also held that the plaintiff and other defendants were not recorded as sub-tenants in the revenue records and no application was made by them within 2 months as required by sec 19 (2) Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Both parties appealed to the Revenue Appellate Authority, the plaintiff because khatedari rights were not accorded to him and the defendants No. 1 and 2 because the order of injunction had been made against them in favour of the plaintiff and defendants No. 3 to 6. The first appellate Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal and decreed the appeal of defendants No. 1 and 2. It also passed an order under sec. 209 Rajasthan Tenancy Act for ejectment of the plaintiff and defendants No. 3 to 6, because it was held that the defendant had sublet the entire holding for one year only in samvat 2013 and thereafter, the plaintiff had become a trespasser. Hence this second appeal.

(2.) THE facts leading to the instant revision are that Gram Panchayat, Jetaran on the basis of possession in samvat 2012, effected mutation of the disputed land under sec. 19 Rajasthan Tenancy Act in favour of the applicants. THE appeal preferred before the Additional Collector, Pali by Mangal Chand on the ground that as the applicants were not recorded in the annual register of samvat 2012 and as they were not his sub-tenants they could not become khatedars under sec 19 (1) or (b) Rajasthan Tenancy Act, was accepted and the mutation was set aside. Aggrieved thereby the present applicants have filed this revision before the Board.