JORMAL AND ORS. Vs. KISHAN LAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra-Court appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge, by which he has declined to interfere, in exercise of his power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with the order of Revenue Board, on the ground the High Court does not ordinarily interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the Revenue Authorities. The plaintiff- respondent in this Special Appeal, belongs to the Scheduled Caste. His father was recorded to be in cultivatory possession of the land in dispute for a long period of time. The suit filed by him for declaration of his right was however dismissed for want of prosecution. The Revenue Board however allowed the appeal on the ground that the plaintiff, belongs to the Scheduled Caste, were recorded as Khatedar of the agricultural land in dispute, namely old Khasra Nos. 418, 426 and 427 equivalent to new Khasra No. 473 to an extent of 3 Bigha 17 Biswas, Khasra No. 480, 8 Biswa, and Khasra No. 481 admeasuring 15 Biswas, situate in village Chirkhana, District Alwar. The manner in which the defendants, who are the appellants before us, came into possession of the land, and were recorded as Khatedars, was not pleaded or established. It is submitted that the father of the plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction over the land in dispute, which was dismissed for want of prosecution, and since he did not file any appeal, the plaintiff has lost his rights, to claim, to be the Khatedar of the land. The second suit filed by him is barred on the principles of law in Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent belongs to the Schedule Caste. His father could not have lost title over the land just because he could not pursue the suit. Even if no appeal was filed, the subsequent suit will not be barred in law, inasmuch as a Scheduled Caste in cultivatory possession, could not have lost his right as Khatedar, only on the ground that one of the suits filed by his father for the same relief, was dismissed for want of prosecution. A heavy burden lay upon the appellants to prove the manner, in which they acquired possession and consequently title, as alleged by them, to be recorded as Khatedar. In Coffee Board v. Ramesh Exports Pvt. Ltd., 2014 6 SCC 424, it was held by Apex Court that to attract the bar to the subsequent suit the Courts must examine both the plaints by reading them as a whole to identify cause of action after giving opportunity to plaintiff to explain his case and that an issue must be framed and decided to attract the bar under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC.

(3.) The Revenue Board had considered the claim of the appellants, and found that they could not have acquired title over the land, on which a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste, was in cultivatory possession.