LADU Vs. BHOMLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application under sec. 10(2) of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949, against an order of the Anti-Ejectment Officer, Sikar, dated 25.5.1954 granting protection to the applicant only in respect of the one-fourth land in dispute and rejecting his claim for the residuary area.

(2.) WE have heard the parties and have waded through the record as well. The Judgment of the lower court is obviously based on a rejection of material documentary evidence which is not justifiable. The applicant relies upon a khasra kunt of Svt. 2008 in which he has been shown as being in possession over 11 bighas kham. It has been admitted by the opposite-party before us that no entry in khasra kunt of Svt. 2008 in respect of any portion of the land in dispute exists in their name. It is equally significant to note that no steps were taken by the opposite-party to seek correction of this entry in case they were actually co-sharers in the tenancy of the applicant. Doubts have been thrown upon the receipt of payment of rent granted by Narain Singh, land-holder, in favour of the applicant for the entire land in dispute by suggesting that it was executed only a few days prior to the dispute. It is equally true that no efforts were ever made by the opposite-party to pay rent in case they were actually co-sharers of any portion of the land. On the contrary the District Board cess receipts obtained by them for a trivial sum of money a few weeks before the dispute arose tends to suggest the existence of some ulterior motive on their part. This payment in Svt. 2009 is alleged to have been made for a period of two years, Svt. 2006 and Svt. 2007. It is not clear to us as to why this cess was allowed to accumulate during all these three years and was not paid as and when it became due. To out mind no suspicion or distrust can be attached to the khasra kunt of Svt. 2008. The applicant's entry stands against 11 bighas kham out of the total area of 32 bighas commanded by the well. No convincing reasons have been adduced by the opposite-party as to why the applicant should have been allowed to cultivate the land in excess of his share. The applicant's explanation that this was the entire area under rahi harvest is perfectly convincing. Looking to the balance of evidence, therefore, we are clearly of the opinion that the theory set up the opposite-party as regards the applicant's cultivation extending to one-fourth share of the land is palpably false and it simply represents a device to stake out a claim to the cultivation of the land to which they were not entitled. The judgment of the lower court is clearly against the weight of evidence on record. WE would, therefore, allow this revision, and modify the order of the lower court to the extent that the applicant shall be reinstated over the entire land in dispute.