HIRALAL Vs. HAKRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is Hira defendant appellants second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur dated l7.12.64.

(2.) Briefly the facts of the case are that Hakraj plaintiff -respondent filed a suit under sec. 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act against Hira and others for ejectment as a trespasser. The plaintiffs averment in the plaint was that the suit land was his khatedari land. He fell ill some eight years back. He took a loan of Rs. 400/ -from defendant and as he did not return the loan the respondent took forcible possession of the suit land and hence he should be ejected. The defendant -appellants plea was that he was in possession of the suit land as a tenant since long. He never advanced any loan to the plaintiff -respondent. The trial court "decreed the suit of the plaintiff -respondent holding the defendant -appellant as trespasser and further imposing a penalty for his act of trespass. The first appellate court in appeal filed by defendant appellant came to the conclusion that the defendant -appellant took no forcible possession of the suit land but was in possession of the land in lieu of Rs. 400/ - advanced by him to plaintiff respondent during his illness and therefore he invoked his powers u/sec. 209 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act of granting proper relief to the plaintiff -respondent by directing that the plaintiff -respondent should pay Rs. 400/ - to the defendant -appellant and recover possession. It is against this judgment of the first appellate court that the defendant -appellant has come up in second appeal.

(3.) The plaintiff -respondent did not appear and this appeal was heard ex parte.