MANDIA Vs. GADSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal under sec. 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act has been filed against the judgment and decree of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur, dated 28.8.1964, whereby the judgment and decree of the Assistant Collector. Jhun -jhunu dated 13.12.62 was set aside and the defendants -appellants were ordered to be evicted from Khasra Nos. 144 and 146 falling in village Chorodi as trespassers.

(2.) The facts of the case are not disputed. The plaintiff -respondent filed a suit in the court of the Assistant Collector, Jhunjhunu under sec. 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act against the defendants -appellants. It was alleged that his father, Jawara, owned Khasra Nos. 144,145 and 146. Jawara had another son Lakshman who died at a young age leaving behind his widow Mst. Rajoli. As she was very young, Jawara gave herin second marriage to one Buddha. The defendants -appellants are the sons of Mst. Rajoli through Buddha. At the time of the marriage, Jawara gave Khasra No. 145 to Rajoli and Buddha for their maintenance, but retained the other two Khasra Nos. in his own possession. He, however, sought the help of the defendants -appellants in the cultivation of this land. When Jawara died in St. year 2012, these two Khasra Nos. were mutated in favour of his surviving son, Gadsi, the plaintiff -respondent. As, however, the defendants -appellants would not relinquish the possession of the same, he brought a suit against them under sec. 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The defendants -appellants resisted the suit and claimed that the land had been given to them by Jawara and that they had been cultivating it for a long time. After framing the necessary issues and recording evidence, the trial court came to the conclusion that the defendants -appellants had acquired Khatedari rights in the land and the suit was, therefore, dismissed.

(3.) Having felt aggrieved by this order, the plaintiff respondent filed an appeal before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority who reversed the finding of the trial court on the ground that the defendants had not pleaded any tenancy rights over the land, but had resisted the title of the plaintiff on the basis that they had been in the possession of these fields on behalf of Jawara. It was held that this would not confer any title on the defendants - appellants in supersession of the title of the sole survior of Jawara namely, Gadsi, the plaintiff -respondent. The defendants -appellants were, therefore, ordered to be evicted from the suit lands. Hence this second appeal.