PYAR CHAND Vs. SURAJMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota, dated 30-7-63, whereby he reversed the judgment and decree of the Assistant Collector, Bundi, dated 29-1-63 in a suit filed by the appellant under sec. 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act against the respondent.

(2.) IT was claimed by the appellant that he had come into possession of the suit land on the basis of a sale held by the Munsiff Bundi in execution of a decree against Mangilal, the original Khatedar of the suit land. The auction sale was finalised in his favour and was accepted By the Collector. The appellant who was the auction purchaser duly received the sale certificate from the Munsiff Bundi and the land was subsequently entered in his Khatedari. On 1-4-55, the possession of the land was delivered to him, but the respondent committed a trespass on the same on the plea that he was the mortgagee in possession of the said land. IT was averred that the respondent-defendant had no valid title to the land and that his possession fell within the definition of a trespasser who should be ejected The trial Court framed three issues as follows: - (1) Is the defendant in occupation of the suit land in the capacity of a trespasser since 1-4-56 and, therefore, liable to ejectment? (2) Is the defendant in occupation of the land as mortgagee in possession? If so, what would be its effect on the suit? (3) Relief?