PRABHULAL Vs. CHHITAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present intra-court appeal has been filed by the appellants-petitioners challenging the order dated 9th May,2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1614/2012.

(2.) THE short facts giving rise to the appeal are that late Shri Raghunath was the original Khatedar of the land in question situated in village-Ghat Ka Barana, Tehsil-Keshorai Patan, Bundi and he had four sons named Jawahari, Madan Lal, Prabhu Lal and Janki Lal. The respondents no.1 to 3 (original-plaintiffs), being the sons of Madan Lal filed the suit for partition against the appellants, being the sons of Shri Raghunath under section 53 of the Tenancy Act,1955 (hereinafter referred as the "said Act ") and also for possession of 1/3rd share which had fallen into the share of their father Madan Lal, before the Assistant Collector, Keshorai Patan i.e the respondent no.6 herein. The appellants-petitioners-defendants had contested the suit by contending interalia that a settlement deed dated 12.6.1968 was executed between the parties making family settlement and the respondents-plaintiffs were bound by the said family settlement.

(3.) THE only contention raised by learned counsel Mr. PK Sharma for the appellants is that all the revenue authorities as well as the learned Single Judge had failed to appreciate the evidence on record and more particularly the settlement deed dated 12.6.1968 which was binding to all the parties. According to Mr. Sharma, as per the said writing, it was agreed upon by the father of the respondents, Shri Madan Lal that he would be entitled to the Khatedari rights in the land of Jawaril Lal and that the Khatedari rights of his father Raghunath would fall to the shares of Prabhu lal and Janaki Lal exclusively, to his exclusion. He further submitted that the said document of family settlement dated 12.6.1968 was ordered to be admitted in evidence by the respondent no.6-Additional Collector, subject to the payment of cost of Rs.100.00, however, since the said cost was not deposited by the appellants-defendants and since the said document was unregistered and unstamped, it was not admitted in evidence. According to him, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents-plaintiffs were estopped from claiming any right or share in the land in question.