RAMESHWAR LAL Vs. SUBHASH CHANDRA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A challenge has been made in this petition, purporting to be both under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, to the judgment dt. 09.01.2014 passed by the Board of Revenue (hereinafter 'the Board') upholding the judgment and decree dt. 27.09.2003 under the hand of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sikar Camp Jhunjhunu (hereinafter 'the RAA'), who had set aside the judgment and decree dt. 24.03.2003 passed by the SDO, Chirawa, who in turn had dismissed the suit of the respondent -plaintiff (hereinafter 'the plaintiff) for declaration and correction of revenue entries. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner defendant (hereinafter 'the defendant') and perused the judgment of the Board, the RAA as also the SDO, Chirawa. What emerges from the facts is that vide registered sale deed dt. 15.06.1974, agricultural land in Khasra Nos. 251, 252, 253, 255 and 271 aggregating to 15 bigha & 5 biswa (new khasra Nos. 595, 597, 598, 601, 602 and 603 measuring to 3.70 hectares) was purchased jointly by the plaintiff Subhash Chand (now dead and represented by his LRs) and his brother Shankar Lal in equal measure. Following the purchase, mutation No. 286 and 298 dt. 24.07.1974 and 20.09.1974 were sanctioned in the names of Subhash Chandra and Shankar Lal jointly. The vendees aforesaid came into possession of the lands purchased and the possession is reflected in Jamabandi of Samvat 2033. In the revenue entry of 2032 -35 (in the Jamabandi) the plaintiff and his brother Shankar Lal were recorded as khudkhast tenants.

(2.) THE plaintiff at the relevant time was employed with the Indian Army and was posted from place to place throughout the country until he retired in April, 1991. On return to the village, he found that his half share in the aforesaid khasras had been appropriated by Rameshwar Lal, his brother in conspiracy with Shankar Lal and his father on a purported application dt. 10.09.1981 alleged to be carrying his signatures stating that his name in the joint khatedari with his brother Shankar Lal in the lands purchased on 15.06.1974 by a registered sale -deed with his brother Shankar Lal and subsequent mutation entries and revenue records 2032 -35 was an inadvertent error and be replaced with the name of Rameshwar. The plaintiff's case was that on the basis of forged application dt. 10.09.1981, on the same day, the Assistant Settlement Officer ordered for deleting his name from the joint khatedari and replacing it with that of his brother Rameshwar Lal. In these circumstances, the suit for declaration and correction of entries was laid by the plaintiff before the SDO, Chirawa.

(3.) IN the plaintiff's appeal against the judgment and decree dt. 24.03.2003 passed by the SDO, the RAA vide his judgment and decree dt. 27.09.203 set aside the conclusions of the SDO and decreed the plaintiff's suit. The RAA held that the plaintiff was joint/half owner of the disputed land admeasuring 3.70 hectares alongwith the brother Shankar Lal on the basis of registered sale -deed dt. 15.06.1974, the consequent mutation entries bearing khasra Nos. 286 and 298 dt. 24.07.1974 and 20.09.1974 respectively and entries for samvat 2032 -35. The RAA also held that the Assistant Settlement Officer could not have without a direction of a competent Court altered the revenue entries (Jamabandi) in the name of the plaintiff merely on the basis of an application made on a plain paper, purportedly in the name of the plaintiff as such a transfer of property was contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1882') as also the Rajasthan Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1908') inasmuch as the value of the immovable property in issue was plainly over Rs. 100/ -. The RAA also noted that as far as the question of the plaintiff signing the purported application dt. 10.09.1981 before the ASO stating that his name was wrongly recorded in the sale deed as also in the revenue record i.e. Jamabandi 2032 -35 and the khasra girdawari 2033 was no event inasmuch as the FSL report dt. 27.01.2001 (in a criminal investigation in regard to the same fraudulent alteration of revenue record), found that the signatures of the plaintiff on the application dt. 10.09.1981 were forged. The RAA also noted that admittedly even the SDO, Chirawa had found that the plaintiff had a connection in his own name over the well situate over four biswas in khasras - 254 (old) khasra No. 596 (new). The RAA also negated the case of the defendant that the land purchased under registered sale deed dt. 15.06.1974 albeit in the name of the plaintiff and his brother Shankar Lal was property of the joint Hindu family. In coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the RAA recorded that no declaration to this effect was sought in any competent Court of law nor in fact any proof of the land in dispute having been purchased from the corpus of the joint family funds laid before the trial Court. The RAA also found on the basis of the record that the plaintiff, as per khasra girdawari of samvat 2033 was recorded as khudkhast tenant alongwith Shankar Lal and there was no evidence whatsoever before the SDO as to how the plaintiff once lawfully in possession was dispossessed therefrom. In this view of the matter, the RAA decreed the plaintiff's suit for declaration that he was half owner on 3.70 hectares agricultural land in khasra Nos. 595, 597, 598, 601, 602 and 603 (new) and was entitled to correction of entries in the revenue records accordingly.