BANTARAM Vs. DIDAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision against a judgment and decree of the Commissioner, Bikaner, dated 30. 5. 1956 which confirmed a judgment and decree of the Assistant Collector, Raisinghnagar, dated 7. 7. 1955 dismissing the suit of the applicant with costs.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also examined the record. The material facts of the case are that Banta Ram applicant brought a suit against Deedar Singh and Balbeer Singh, non-applicants, under item No. 25 of Group B of the First Schedule of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951 on 4. 12. 1954, in the court of the Assistant Collector, Raisinghnagar, alleging that he had purchased square No. 16, situated in chak No. 13 P. S. and in order to obtain an easy access to the square in question he had submitted an application, for opening a new path which would run through the corner of the square owned by the non-applicants. The application was rejected and the applicant was directed to pursue his proper remedy in a court of law. He, therefore, instituted a suit against the non-applicants as mentioned above. The defendants in their written statement controverted the allegations of the plaintiff and made out that the plaintiff could have access to his square by going along the path which ran close to the back of the canal. His predeeessor-in-interest had also filed a similar application which was dismissed The suit of the plaintiff was barred by res judicata. The trial court framed as many as three issues which were based upon the pleadings of the parties. Issues Nos. 1 and 2 were confined entirely to point of law. As the learned counsel for the defendants failed to adduce any authority in support of his contention that the suit instituted by the plaintiff was either barred by limitation or could not be tried on the ground of res judicata, both the issues were decided against the defendants. Issue No. 3 which hinged on the crucial point that was in controversy was decided against the plaintiff and his suit was dismissed. The plaintiff filed an appeal from the judgment and decree of the Assistant Collector in the court of the learned Commissioner, Bikaner. The learned Commissioner after gathering information on certain points which had been apparently left in obscurity by the trial court came to the conclusion that the appeal filed by the plaintiff was devoid of substance. He, therefore, dismissed it. Aggrieved by the decision of the learned Commissioner, Bantaram has come up in revision to the Board.