LADDU LAL Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed against the judgment dated 29.06.2011, passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer (hereinafter "the Board") setting aside the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2004, passed by the Deputy District Collector, Sawai Madhopur as also the affirmation judgment and decree dated 01.09.2005, passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sawai Madhopur (hereinafter "RAA") whereby the respondent -plaintiff's (hereinafter "the plaintiff") suit for declaration and correction of entries was decreed and the counter claim of the petitioner -defendant (hereinafter "the defendant") dismissed. The Board has in the circumstances dismissed the plaintiff's suit and decreed the defendant's counter claim.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the plaintiff, one Bheru, now deceased and represented by his LR Laddu Lal, filed a suit for declaration and correction of entries with regard to land in khasra No.852 measuring 18 biswa, 853 measuring 1 bigha, 854 measuring 2 biswa, 855 measuring 13 biswa, 856 measuring 14 biswa, 857 measuring 12 biswa, 858 measuring 1 bigha 12 biswa, 859 measuring 1 bigha 14 biswa, 860 measuring 1 bigha 4 biswa, 861 measuring 1 bigha and 862 measuring 10 biswa situate at Sawai Madhopur (hereinafter "the suit land"). It was stated that the suit land had been in exclusive cultivatory possession of the plaintiff for years as reflected in the Misal Hakiyat of Samvat 1988, but during the settlement operation from Samvat 2009 -2023, the said suit land was wrongly and unauthorizedly entered by the Settlement Authority jointly in his name and that of Mooliya son of Birda. Stating that the said entries were not binding as they were made by the Settlement Authority without jurisdiction, it was prayed that the requisite declaration as to the plaintiff's sole khatedari of suit land be made and correction of entries directed as the defendant Dhooliya son of Mooliya who had since expired was never in cultivatory possession of the suit land albeit under the settlement operation during Samvat 2009 -2023, his name was indeed entered as a co -khatedar.

(3.) ON service of notice, the defendant Dhooliya, now deceased and represented through his LRs i.e. respondent Nos.5 to 8, filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint with regard to the plaintiff being the sole khatedar and in exclusive possession of the suit land. A counter claim was also filed stating that the suit land was ancestral land and in terms of the lineage of the plaintiff and the defendant as uncle and nephew detailed in the family tree before the Court, he was entitled to half share/khatedari in the suit land and declaration as such. The trial court on the basis of the pleading of the parties, framed five issues which are as under :