HARI RAM Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment dated 24.08.2000 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, whereby, the second appeal filed by respondent No. 6 - Ganpat has been allowed and the judgment and decree dated 29.09.1997 passed by Additional Commissioner (Colonization) and Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner and judgment and decree dated 13.02.1997 passed by Assistant Commissioner (Colonization), Nohar Sahwa have been set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff - Ganpat for partition has been decreed.

(2.) THE facts in brief may be noticed thus : plaintiff - Ganpat filed a suit for partition, inter alia, with the averments that the land ad measuring 53 Bigha 10 Biswa at village Baramsar was of the Khatedari of Jetha Ram; the plaintiff was son of Bega Ram, who was son of Jetha Ram and the other defendants were all the part of family of late Jetha Ram; it was claimed that Jetha Ram had three sons and all the three sons/other respective heirs have 1/3rd share in the disputed land and, therefore, the same be partitioned.

(3.) THE Assistant Commissioner (Colonization) framed issues and evidence was led by the parties; the Assistant Commissioner (Colonization) by his judgment dated 13.02.1997 came to the conclusion that Jetha Ram expired in Samvat year 2006 and none of the parties had produced record for the period prior to Samvat 2012, Jetha Ram though expired before Samvat 2006, his name continued till Samvat 2027; the names of legal representatives in settlement from Samvat 2006 raises doubt and in Missal Bandobast from Samvat 2020 to 2039 the land was recorded in the name of Hajari S/o Jetha Ram and the suit has been filed in the year 1988; Jetha Ram was living with Hajari and the land in dispute came to his exclusive share, on which, he was in possession and, consequently, decided the issues against the plaintiff; regarding the issues pertaining to estoppel and res judicata on account of filing of the earlier suit, the issues were decided against the defendant.