KALLA Vs. ABDULLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit for arrears of rent and ejectment was filed by the opposite party Kalla and decreed by the trial court. The case ultimately came to the Board of Revenue, who upheld the decree of the trial court. An application for review was also rejected by the Board on 19.11.62. Thereafter, an application was filed by the plaintiff for the execution of the decree. The judgment debtors submitted an objection petition before the S.D.O., Barmer who rejected the same by his order dated 29 4 63, whereupon the judgment debtors preferred an appeal before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority Bikaner who accepted the appeal vide his order dated 10.7.63 and remanded the case to the trial court for framing issues and for a fresh decision.

(2.) The impugned order of the learned R.A.A. has been assailed on the ground that he has reopened some of those issues which had been finally adjudicated upon by the Board of Revenue. The first issue which was raised by the judgment debtors in their objection petition was that the Tehsildar had passed the decree without jurisdiction and the decree was, therefore, a nullity. It has been contended that this issue had been finally settled by the Board of Revenue in their order dated 13.3.62. The Board has also rejected a review application through their order dated 19.11.62 and it was held that the Tehsildar was competent to decide the case and the decree was rightly issued by him in the exercise of jurisdiction vesting in him. The learned R.A.A. had therefore, committed illegality in reopening this question and in remanding the case for an enquiry on this issue.

(3.) The impugned order has also been challenged on the ground that it was perverse and against the facts on record. The learned R.A.A. had come to the conclusion that the judgment debtors had acquired khatadari rights over the suit land through the operation of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and that trial court had failed to consider this aspect and had not applied its mind to this question. It was contended that this plea had never been taken by the defendants through out the chequered history of this case in any court. It was urged that the jama -bandi record showed that the plaintiff was a khatedar of the land and not a jagirdar and the Land Reforms & Resumption of Jagirs Act did not have any effect on his khatedari rights and the conclusion drawn by the learned R. A. A. that the trial court should have considered this aspect was entirely contrary to the facts on record.