NATHA RAM Vs. BHIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners by this writ petition seek to challenge the validity of the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 18 -1 -1977, whereby it dismissed the Second Appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 18 -11 -1972 passed by the Revenue: Appellate Authority. Jodhpur, which in turn affirmed the judgment and decree of the Assistant Collector, Banner, dated 30 -8 -1971, dismissing the petitioners* suit under Sections 88 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) THE facts leading to the present writ petition may be briefly noticed Ramlal (since deceased) and his son Natharam instituted a suit (No.59 of 1970) against Bhika and Punja under Section 88 and 188 of the Act in the Court of Assistant Collector, Barmer. It was averred by the plaintiff -petitioners that they had been in cultivatory possession of the field known as 'Doliwaal' comprised in 'Khasara' No. 426 measuring 136 'bighas' and 1 'biswa' situated in village Dokha since generations, but the defendant No. 1 Bhika wanted to forcibly dispossess them from the field in dispute. It was stated that in the year 1956 Settlement 'parcha' was issued in favour of Ramlal, plaintiff No. 1, but Mst. Parwati got the 'Parcha' revised on 26 -12 -1956 without notice to them, whereby two third share in the field was recorded in her name in the 'parcha'. However, in the revenue record Ramlal continued to be recorded as 'khatedar' of the whole field till St. 2020. In St. 2021 the defendant Bhika got the name of Parwati entered as 'khatedar' of two -third share in the 'jamabandi' without notice to the plaintiffs The plaintiffs thereupon moved an application under Section 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act before the Sub -Divisional Officer, Banner, on 27 -11 -1966. The said application was allowed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Banner, on 25 -7 -1970 and it was ordered that the entire 'khasara' No. 426 be entered in the 'khatedari' of Ramlal, plaintiff No. 1, and correction in 'jamabandi' be made. On these facts the plaintiffs, therefore, prayed that they may be declared as 'khatedar -tenants' of the field in question and the defendants be restrained from interfering in their cultivatory possession.

(3.) THE plaintiffs submitted rejoinder, in which the averments made relating to the defendants' claim over the field were denied and it was also denied that Mst. Parwati adopted Bhika.