BALA Vs. RAO RAJA UDAI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of the case which have given rise to this application in revision against the judgment of the Addl. Commissior, Jodhpur dated 29. 12. 56 may briefly be stated as below -

(2.) THE applicants presented an application under sec. 7 of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants'; Ordinance, before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sojat for reinstatement on the land in dispute with the allegation that they had been lawfully admitted as tenant of the same in Svt. 2009 by the opposite party and that they cultivated the same in Kharif and Rabi of the said Sambat but were forcibly dispossessed thare-from after the expiry of Svt. 2009 by the opposite-party Rao Raja Udai Singh. It was also alleged that the non-applicant dispossessed the applicants on the ground that they refused to pay l/5th share of the produce to the non-applicant as against 4/6th share which alone could be lawfully realised by him. THE opposite party in his written statement denied the applicants' contention and urged that the land was in his Khudkasht and that it was only in Svt. 2009 that he engaged the applicants as hired labourers for assisting him in cultivation. In the alternative it was also stated by the non-applicant that if it be held that the land was given for purposes of cultivation to them as tenants in Svt. 2009 the applicants cannot claim reinstatement because they themselves voluntarily surrendered the land after having removed the produce. THE trial court examined a large number of witnesses produced by both the parties. THE learned court discussed in detail the statements made by these witnesses, and believed the testimony of the applicants' witnesses and rejected the theory set up by. the non-applicants. THE learned court found it a fact that the document Ex. D. 1 said to have been executed by two of the applicants Balu and Ada in favour of the non-applicant as his hired labour's was not proved. It also ruled out the plea taken by the non-applicant to the effect that the applicants had voluntarily surrendered the land in favour of the non-applicant. Accordingly the learned court allowed the application and ordered reinstatement of the applicants on the land in dispute. THE non-applicant went in appeal against it to the learned Addl. Commissioner. THE learned lower appellate court also discussed the evidence and arrived at a different conclusion. It held that the evidence produced by the non-applicant was worthy of greater credence than that of the applicants. It also held that the execution of the document Ex. D-1 as well as the fact of voluntary surrender wa proved against the applicants. In the result the decision given by the learned trial court was set aside and the application for reinstatement was dismissed. Being aggrieved from this decision of the learned lower appellate court the applicants have come in revision before us.