ALAMSHERKHAN Vs. SUNDERLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IS a review petition against the decISion of the Board of Revenue dated the 16th of April, 1964, in a second appeal against the two concurrent judgments and decrees of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur dated the 6th of March, 1963 and the AssIStant Collector, Jaipur dated the 29th May, 1962, whereby the second appeal was rejected and the suit of the non-petitioner for ejectment of the petitioners under sec. 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 was decreed. The facts of the case are that on 26th of September, 1959, the non-petitioner claiming to be a Khudkasht holder of certain muafi land, alleged in hIS plaint that he had sub-let the said land to one Chhotukhan in Smt. 2011 for a period of five years. He further alleged that Chhotukhan had admitted the petitioners and one Ramjeevan Chamar as partners in cultivation, but that in Smt. 2014 the defendants ousted Chhotukhan and Ramjeevan and usurped exclusive possession. Finally he averred that the period of lease of five years had expired, but the defendants had retained unlawful possession thereafter. The petitioners admitted that the land was the muafi of the respondent, but they alleged that they themselves had been admitted as tenants by the respondent in Smt. 2011. They further stated that after the resumption of the muafi the respondent had no right to sue them since they had themselves become khatedar tenants of the land.

(2.) AFTER setting the issues and taking evidence of the parties, the trial Court held that the land in dispute was recorded as khudkast and therefore, the non-petitioner had become a khatedar tenant thereof. The trial Court further found that the non-petitioner had leased out the land to Chhotukhan in Smt. 2011 for a period of five years and the petitioners having been taken into partnership by Chhotukhan, had subsequently ousted him. The trial court also found that the lease originally given to Chhotukhan had expired on the 25th of May, 1959. On the basis of these findings, the trial Court held that the petitioners were retaining possession of the land unlawfully and were liable to be ejected as trespassers. The suit was, thus decreed. In the appeal that followed, the petitioners were unsuccessful. This was followed by a second appeal before the Board of Revenue. Here also the petitioners met with no success and now a review petition has been filed against the order of to the Division Bench of this Board. As the two learned Members who heard this second appeal have ceased to be attached with the Board, the same has come for hearing before us.