REVTI Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE common questions of law and facts are involved in both these petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) RESPONDENTS no. 4 and 5 Tejaram and Chawli are the son and daughter of decease plaintiff Hanuman and the petitioners are legal representatives of deceased Kanaram. Admittedly, the property in dispute belonged to Budharam, who had two sons Narain and Baluram. Hanuman plaintiff was the son of Narain and Kana Ram was the son of Baluram. Respondents no. 4 and 5 are legal representatives of Hanuman and petitioners no. 1 to 12 are the legal representatives of Kanaram.

(3.) THE entire land in question was mutated in the name of Kanaram and therefore, an application was moved by Hanuman that mutation made in favour of Kanaram be cancelled as he has half share in the property. The mutation was cancelled, which was maintained upto Board of Revenue, against which writ Petition No. 1074/94 Smt. Revti and Ors. v. Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer and Ors. is filed. The application for correction of mutation and the suit was disposed of by the Board of Revenue by common order.