UMIA BAI Vs. CHAMPALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been brought against the order of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur, dated 24. 8. 1964, reversing the judgment and decree of the learned Collector, Chittorgarh, dated 9 6-61 passed in his appellate jurisdiction against the order of the Tehsildar, Pratabgarh, dated 10. 10. 60, whereby the learned Collector, Chittorgarh, had accepted the appeal filed by the petitioner in a suit filed by him against the non-petitioner for arrears of rent. The suit was dismissed by the court of the Tehsildar. In appeal, however, the Collector partially decreed the suit. The non-petitioner felt aggrieved against this order and filed an appeal in the court of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority who reversed the appellate order of the Collector and dismissed the suit. Hence this revision petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the entries in the Jamabandi for the period 2010 to 2013 (Ex. 1) in which the petitioner has been entered as the Jagirdar and the defendant-non-petitioner finds no mention. He has also referred to the Khasra Girdawari for the period 2011 to 2014 (Ex. 2), wherein the petitioner has been entered as the tenant and the non-petitioner as the Shikmi. On the basis of these entries, the petitioner claims that she is entitled to receive rent from the non-petitioner. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the non-petitioner relies on the Jamabandi for the year 2013 to 2016 which contains the name of Champa, non-petitioner, as the tenant. He also relies on the Parcha Khatauni for 2001. In fact, it appears that these documents held sway with the learned Revenue Appellate Authority when he decided to reverse the order of the learned Collector. It is, however, admitted by the learned counsel for the non-petitioner that the petitioner was not confronted with these documents and did not have any opportunity to rebut the same. In fact, during the course of the argument before me, the learned counsel for the petitioner produced the extract from the Jamabandi for the period 2017 onwards and also the Khasra girdawari for 2015 and 2016. These documents appear to be in favour of the petitioner.

(2.) IT is obvious that the learned Revenue Appellate Authority has relied on evidence which has not been properly admitted in accordance with the provisions of O. 41, R. 27 C. P. C. This is manifestly an error which strikes at the root of his judgment. His order which is based on these documents is, therefore, clearly not sustainable. i