MAGNA Vs. KERIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been filed against an appellate judgment and decree of the Revenue Appellate Authority Bikaner dated 26.6.62 reversing that of the Assistant Collector, Jalore dated 23.5.61.

(2.) The respondents Keria etc. were the plaintiffs in the suit giving rise to this second appeal. On 9.12.58 they instituted a suit in the court of Assistant Collector, Jalore seeking a declaration of their khatedari rights over the land in dispute and also possession by means of the ejectment of the defendant appellant before us, who it was alleged had forcibly ejected the plaintiffs in Smt. year 2012. The defendant -appellant joined the suit asserting his own title over the suit land alleging that he had been duly let out the land by the jagirdar of the land after the plaintiffs had relinquished the land in his favour. It was also pleaded on his behalf that not only had the plaintiffs surrendered the land to the jagirdar through a written deed of surrender but in a subsequent criminal dispute acknowledged the possession of the defendant in a rajinama filed before the criminal court. On these allegations of the parties the trial court framed as many as 8 issues. Those relevant for our present purpose are issue Nos. 1,2,3, 5 and 8. They are as follows: - -

(3.) It is against the [aforesaid order that this second appeal has been filed. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged three contentions before us. In the first place he has attacked the order of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority as bad in the eye of law inasmuch as the judgment does not disclose the contentions that were raised before the Appellate Court nor has the learned court discussed any evidence to support his finding. His next contention is that the learned Revenue Appellate Authority was manifestly in error of law in holding the surrender deed i.e. Ex. D.W./4/1 as void. The argument is that the document having been executed in Smt. year 2006 it should have been tested in the light of the law regarding surrender as it stood at the time of the execution of the deed and not as it came to be subsequently under the provisions of Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The next contention of the learned counsel is that the Rajinama Ex. D. 9, which is to say minimum is an admission on behalf of the plaintiffs recognising the possession of the defendant before the criminal court has been rejected by learned Revenue Appellate Authority for reasons which cannot be held to be valid or sufficient. He therefore invited us to hold that the surrender or relinquishment on behalf of the plaintiffs in Smt. year 2006 stands proved and that the defendants are in lawful possession of the land in dispute. In his reply to the above contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant Shri Hastimal appearing on behalf of the plaintiff respondent submitted that it was not necessary for the Revenue Appellate Authority to have referred to each and every issue. It was enough for him to have referred to those issues which were raised before him. As regards the surrender deed it was his contention that the surrender deed was found by the trial court to be a document not proved, because the scribe in whose handwriting it was executed was not called to prove it. As regards Ex. D/9 i.e. (he rajinama filed in the criminal court no satisfactory reply was forthcoming from the counsel but he submitted that once it had been recognised that the plaintiffs were the khatedars of the suit land there could be no question of surrender by them and the only proper thing to do in view of this finding was to have declared the title of the plaintiffs and put them in possession which the learned Revenue Appellate Authority did.