GONA Vs. PADMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the unsuccessful plaintiff's second appeal against an appellate decree of the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur, whereby the decree of the trial court was reversed and appellant's suit for recovery of possession and correction of entries in the khasra teeps Svt. 2003 to 2005 was dismissed.

(2.) WE have heard the parties and have examined the record as well The lower appellate court has held that the appellant's suit was barred by res-judicata. To appreciate this argument it is necessary to examine the relevant facts. In the Svt. 2005 jamabandi padma respondent, Mangla,Bhonra etc. are recorded as proprietors of the land in dispute. Jawali appellant is recorded as non-occupancy tenant and Padma respondent is shown as a sub-tenant under Jawali. Jawali applied against Padma on 20-8.49 before the Anti Ejectment Officer Bharatpur under sec. 7 of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, alleging that Padma had wrongfully dispossessed him in the preceding Sarwan and that as Padma was only a sub-tenant he had no right to dispossess Jawali. Jawali prayed for re-instatement over the land in dispute. This request was rejected on 7.9.1949 as it was found that Padma was a sub-tenant and was not liable to ejectment. Thereafter Jawali brough this suit on 15.10.1949 for correction of entries of khasra teep Svt. 2003. 2004 and 2005 with the allegations that the respondent Padma had got them in collusion with the Patwari. It is significant to observe that in this plaint the averment was that Jawali was in possession of the land in dispute and efforts were being made by Padma to dispossess him on the basis of these entries. However, on 29.11.1949 an amendment was sought whereby a prayer for recovery of possession was added to the relief sought without, however, making any specific mention as to when and how Jawali was dispossessed from the land in dispute. The trial court decreed the suit in toto. The defendant went up in appeal before the Additional Commissioner who accepted the same and held that the present suit was barred by res-judicata inasmuch as the matter had already been heard and decided in the earlier R.P.T.O., proceedings between the parties.