RAMSWAROOP (DEAD) Vs. MANNA LAL & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellants assailing judgment dated 27.04.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing writ petition filed by the appellants-petitioners assailing the judgment dated 06.03.2014 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer(for short 'the Board of Revenue'). The Board of Revenue by the aforesaid judgment has set aside judgment and decree dated 28.06.2000 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sikar(for short 'the RAA') and restored the judgment dated 12.06.1998 passed by the S.D.O., Jhunjhunu.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and partition claiming that disputed land was ancestral property of the grand father of both the plaintiffs and the defendants-one Saligram. The plaintiffs were the sons of Murlidhar, one of the six sons of Saligram and in exclusive possession of 1/6th share of Khasra No. 908/1 ad-measuring 8 Bigha and 15 biswas situated in Jhunjhunu as per preexisting arrangement between the family members. The defendant No. 1-petitioner filed written statement in the suit on 05.08.1996, wherein he as also the two sons of another son of Saligram and one Vishwanath, admitted that the disputed property was indeed ancestral. The defendant No. 1 Ramswaroop specifically stated that plaintiffs' suit be decreed. However, an application was filed by Ramswaroop on 15.12.1997, whereby he sought to withdraw from his admission about the disputed property being ancestral and that the suit be decreed on that basis. It was rather stated that Ramswaroop was the absolute owner of the disputed property, which was purchased by him vide registered sale deed dated 18.03.1957. Mutation was also attested in his name on 28.05.1958. S.D.O., Jhunjhunu vide judgment dated 12.06.1998 decreed the suit on the basis of admission of the defendant. However, the RAA reversed the said judgment vide judgment dated 28.06.2000. The Board of Revenue vide judgment dated 06.03.2014 in appeal filed by the respondents again restored the judgment of the SDO by setting aside judgment of the RAA.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants has reiterated the same arguments before this Court, which were made before the learned Single Judge that the respondents, in the suit for declaration and partition, failed to produce any document which proves that the land in dispute was in khatedari of Saligram and they were in possession of the land. The respondents-plaintiffs cannot be permitted to rely on the weakness of the defendant. Application for withdrawal of the admission in the written statement having been filed, the SDO was duty bound to look into the revenue record before passing any order. The parties are related to each other. The plaintiffs were the sons of brother of Ramswaroop(Defendant No. 1) and, thus, under pressure and emotion, Defendant No. 1 was made to admit all the facts in the written statement. The defendant No. 1 purchased the disputed property through registered sale deed in the year 1957 and since then it was shown in his name in the revenue record. In the suit of partition, it was necessary to implead all the legal heirs of deceased ancestor as party by the plaintiffs. Defendant No. 1 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC for impleadment of legal heirs in the suit, which was rejected on the ground that it was not accompanied by Vakalatnama. Learned counsel for the appellants citing judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balraj Taneja & Another Vs. Sunil Madan & Another, 1999 8 SCC 396 argued that as per the ratio of aforesaid judgment and as per provisions of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC and proviso to Rule 5 of Order 8 CPC, notwithstanding the admission made by the defendant in his pleading, the court may still require the plaintiff to prove the facts pleaded by him in the plaint. This is also evident from proviso to Section 58 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which stipulates that despite admission of a party, the Court may, in its discretion, require the facts admitted to be proved.