FATEH SINGH THROUGH LRS. Vs. VINOD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'defendant') in the instant writ petition, seeks to set aside the judgment dated August 28, 1986 of Board of Revenue (for short 'Board') and other judgments and decree respectively passed on June 27, 1978 and June 3, 1974 by the Revenue Appellate 5 Authority Bharatpur and Assistant Collector Dholpur.

(2.) Contextual facts depict that second appeal under section 224 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short '1955 Act') was preferred by the defendant before the Board with the averments that Smt. Javitri (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff') filed suit against the defendant in the court of to Assistant Collector Dholpur under section 180 of the 1955 Act and pleaded that she was the recorded khatedar tenant of land bearing khasra No. 3969 measuring 1 bigha 4 biswas situated in village Jariha, Tehsil Rajakhera and being widow for over 30 years was not in a position to cultivate the land personally. She therefore in Svt. 2008 let out the land to defendant for one 15 year to cultivate on payment to her annually of the land revenue payable to the Government and two maunds of grain per year. This annual arrangement was continued in subsequent years on a year to year basis on the same terms till Svt. 2022, but the defendant thereafter made default in the delivery of the two maunds of grain as agreed upon leading to the plaintiff demanding 20 of the defendant in Svt. 2023 that either he conform to the terms under which the land was let or stop cultivating the land. The refusal of the defendant to do either, provided the cause for action for the suit under section 180 of the 1955 Act.

(3.) The defendant filed written statement denying the averments made in 25 the plaint. He denied to have taken the land on the terms set out in the plaint in Svt. 2008 and onwards on a year to year basis. The defendant further alleged that an earlier suit filed in 1956 for the same land by the plaintiff under section 180 of the 1955 Act in the court of the Assistant Collector Dholpur was dismissed in default and the plaintiff was, therefore, debarred from bringing a fresh suit. The plaintiff was not entitled to seek relief in view of the provisions contained in Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. It was also alleged that the suit was time barred as for more than 12 years preceding the filing of the suit the plaintiff had remained dispossessed and her interests, if any, in the land in question had been extinguished under 35 section 63 of the Act.