BEERA Vs. FAKRUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs in both the lower courts. The brief facts of the case are as follows - Beera and Koka sons of Narayan filed a suit for declaration under sec. 101 of Jaipur Tenancy Act on 8-8-50 in the court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Jaipur. The plaintiffs pleaded that their father was in cultivation of the suit land and had expired in the year 1937 when they were minors. Their mother Bhaga executed a sale deed in favour of Fakruddin on 22-2-41 which she was not entitled to execute. Inspite of this sale deed the plaintiffs had been in continuous possession. They therefore prayed that they be declared as khatedar tenants of land and further prayed that the sale deed be held void and the mutation proceedings held illegal. The defendants denied the claim and pleaded that he had been put in possession through the above mentioned sale deed and further pleaded that a suitable amount had been spent on the improvement of the said land which had never been objected to by the plaintiffs. Afterwards Mst. Bhaga was also impleaded as party who pleaded that she had borrowed money in connection with the marriage of her son Heera and she affixed the thumb impression on the deed on the sole assurance of the defendant and under the bonafide belief that no mischief will be played on her.

(2.) AFTER proper enquiry the trial court held that the defendant is the recorded khatedar tenant of the suit land and the plaintiffs are the sub-tenants of the defendant. The suit was ultimately dismissed. The plaintiffs went in appeal before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur who also rejected the appeal. They have now come up in this second appeal before us.

(3.) THUS I agree with my learned brother that the appeal be allowed and the suit of the plaintiff be decreed. .