KHEMA Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE FOR RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are five writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution and since common questions of fact and law arise therein, we consider it proper to dispose them of by a common order.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 4 Pushpendra Singh filed five suits in the court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Kapasan, District Chittorgarh, against the petitioners separately alleging that different parcels of land had been sold to them by five separate sale-deeds dated July 2, 1965 for the price mentioned therein. It was alleged by him that all the sales were fictitious and without consideration and, as a matter of fact, no amount had been paid to him in lieu of these sales. His case is that he was in possession of land in excess of the limit prescribed by the Ceiling Law and, therefore, in order to save the land from being resumed by the State, he executed these fictitious sale-deeds, even though he was a minor at that time. His allegation is that he was born on July 6, 1947 and thus was less than 18 years of age at the time of the execution of the sale-deeds. He, therefore, prayed that since the sales were void on account of his being minor at the time of the execution of the sale-deeds, a decree for possession of the lands may be granted in his favour.

(3.) WE have gone through the judgments of the trial court, the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board. Neither the Revenue Appellate Authority, nor the Board have referred, muchless discussed, the evidence produced by the parties on the question of the age of the plaintiff. It appears to us that the Revenue Appellate Authority, as well as the Board, have proceeded on the assumption that the age entered in the High School Certificate by itself is sufficient for holding that the plaintiff was born on July 6, 1947. WE, however, wish to point out that an entry regarding the age of the plaintiff contained in the High School Certificate is only a piece of evidence, which may be considered, but that is not the final word in the matter. It may be pointed out that the plaintiff examined as many as five witnesses, namely Pushpendra Singh (Plaintiff), Karan Singh, Jeewan Singh, Radha Kishan and Vijay Singh in support of his case. He also produced his High School Certificate. On the other hand, the petitioner-defendants examined in their evidence D. Ws. Nathu Lal, Amba Lal, Deep Chand, Ram Lal. Ganga Ram and Heera Lal. They also relied upon the statement of the plaintiff made by him before the Registrar, wherein he had mentioned that he was 21 years old. Even the trial court has not discussed the evidence of the witnesses produced by the parties. Thus, none of the three courts has discussed the evidence led by the parties on the question of the age of the plaintiff at the time of execution of the sale-deeds and all the three courts seem to have proceeded on the assumption that the age mentioned in the High School Certificate is a conclusive proof. In our opinion, as observed earlier, it is not so.