NARAIN Vs. GORAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SRI Narain Defendant appellant has filed this second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur dated 27. 1. 62 rejecting his first appeal. Briefly the facts of the case are that Shrimati Goran filed a suit for possession against SRI Narain defendant appellant who had forcibly occupied the suit land. The following table shows her relationship to the two Khatedar tenants, namely Mangilal and Baldeo, who died heirless as under: Jai Narain Gopal Mangilal (Mst. Rambha) Goran Daughter Baldeo Goria

(2.) RAMBHA died in Svt. 2014, Mangilal in Smt. 1997, Baldeo died in Svt. 2010 and Goria died in Svt. 1995. The plaintiff respondents' further allegations were that the suit land was wrongly mutated in favour of the defendant appellant as a result of which he forcibly occupied the holding. She claimed that she was the daughter of Jainarain and sister of Mangilal, son of Jai Narain, who died in Svt. 1997 and was succeeded by his wife Mst. RAMBHA. Gopal the brother or her father Jainarain had two sons Baldeo and Goria. They both died issueless, the latter in Svt. 1995 and the former in Svt. 2010. RAMBHA also died in Svt. 2014. Thus she was the only heir left in the family and was thus entitled to succeed to the Khatedari lands of Mangilal and Baldeo. The defendant appellant Sri Narain denied the respondent's claim and even refused to accept her as the real sister of Mangilal and daughter of Jai Narain but admitted the geneological table as given by the respondent and claimed the suit land on the basis that he was the adopted son of Mst. RAMBHA and Baldeo and cultivated the land for the last 15 years and thus acquired Khatedari rights under sec. 15 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The trial court framed the issues and tried the suit and decreed the plaintiff respondent's claim and in an appeal filed by the defendant appellant the decree of the trial court was confirmed. It is against this concurrent finding on facts of the two subordinate courts that the unsuccessful defendant appellant has filed this second appeal.