PRABHATI Vs. SHEOKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal under sec. 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, directed against the judgment and decree of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur dated 15-11-1965. The circumstances giving rise to this second appeal are that the plaintiff-respondent Seokaran filed a suit under sec 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act which was dismissed by the trial court on 8-11-1962. Thereupon he preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority who on 15-11-65 decreed the suit. The suit land measuring 8 bighas 19-1/2 biswas comprised in khasra Nos. 80, 115, 144 and 190 is situate in village Behror of District Alwar. The plaintiff-respondent claimed to be its khatedar tenant and he alleged that the defendant-appellant Prabhati was a trespasser having taken wrongful possession of the suit land in the year Smt. 2011 and having got his name fraudulently entered in khasra Girdawari for Smt. 2011. The grounds of this second appeal are as follows - (1) The appellant, Parbhati, alleges that he has been cultivating the suit land as a tenant of the respondent, on one half Batai of grain and fodder from Smt. 2010, and that he was wrongfully ejected by the respondent some time in the year 1955 and was reinstated into possession u/sec. 7 of the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Behror on 9-7-55, and that this order was upheld by the Revenue Board in a revision filed by the respondent on 14-8-1957 and a review application filed by the respondent against the same was rejected on 31-8-1960. (2) That the judgment and decree of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority is violative of the provisions of Order 41, Rule 31 C. P. C. in asmuch as he has passed his judgment on the decision of only one issue and has completely ignored the others. (3) That the learned Revenue Appellate Authority has misinterpreted the evidence of P. W. 2 Ramswarup who has proved that the suit land was let out to the appellant on one half Batai. (4) That the suit land is admittedly a Biswedari land and consequent upon the abolition of the Biswedari system the land had vested in the State Government and the plaintiff had no legal status to bring a suit under sec. 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, and therefore, the suit was not maintainable. (5) Lastly, the appellant claims that he is a katedari tenant of the suit land and his entry as such is also available in the revenue records.

(2.) WE have heard the parties and examined the record of this case. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the suit land was Biswedari land and on the abolition of biswedari, the appellant being a tenant became a khatedar of the said land in terms of sec. 30 of the Rajasthan Abolition of Zamindari & Biswedari Act. He also produced the parcha-settlement issued in favour of the appellant-Parbhati, showing his possession over the disputed land as khatedar tenant. He pleaded that the parcha should be read in evidence as it has a vital bearing on the issues in dispute. The learned counsel further drew our attention to the judgments of the Board of Revenue in cases u/s. 7 of the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance and submitted that in accordance with those decisions,the reinstatement of the appellant in the suit land was upheld by the Board. In regard to the admissibility of the parcha-settlement, the learned counsel contended that the court has powers to allow evidence if such evidence is required in the interest of substantial justice. He drew our attention to the provisions of O. 41, R. 27 C. P. C. and cited in support of his argument AIR 1963 S. C. 1526 (K. Venkataramiah vs. A. Seetharama Reddy ). The Supreme Court have laid the rule that the appellate court has power to allow additional evidence not only if it requires the evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment but also for any other substantial cause and if it considers that in the interest of justice something which remains obscure, should be filled up so that it can pronounce its judgment in a more satisfactory manner. It was contended by the learned counsel that the parcha settlement was issued after the filing of the second appeal. He also drew our attention to AIR 1931 P. C. 14 (Porsotim Thakur vs. Lal Mohar, Thakur) wherein it has been held that new evidence may be admitted if it has a direct and important bearing on the main issue. The learned counsel, therefore, prayed that the copies of judgments of the cases under the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance and the Board's decision rejecting the review petition which could not be filed before the trial court, may be permitted to be filed now. This review petition was disposed of by the learned Member Shri Kanwar Bahadur on 31-8-1960, while the counsel for Seokaran-respondent admitted that the suit land was a part of biswedari estate which had since vested in the State Government.