RAMESHWAR Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE AJMER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Board of Revenue, dated 11 -11 -1987, whereby the appeal of respondents Nos. 4 and 5 Har Dayal and Sagaria was allowed and the plaintiff petitioner's suit was dismissed.

(2.) THE petitioners filed a suit for declaration against the respondents Har Dayal and Sagaria with the allegations that the petitioners are Khatedars to the extent of 1/2 share in the land comprised of Khasra Nos. 107 and 109 measuring 1 Bigha 13 Biswas and 1 Bigha and 1 Biswas, total 2 Bighas 14 Biswas and they are in possession of their half share These Khasra numbers are old Khasra numbers. Their equivalent is 121 recorded in the new settlement. The petitioners' case is that the defendants got the land entered in their name. The plaintiff, therefore, sought a declaration that to the extent of half share, the entries of the defendant -respondents is void and ineffective as against the plaintiff -petitioners half share. Written statement was filed and after trial the learned Assistant Collector, Behror, dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appel -Hate Authority. The Revenue Appellate Authority set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Assistant -Collector and passed a decree for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are Khatedars of l/4th share of Khasra No. 121 measuring 2 Bighas. The defendants preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue, how ever, allowed the appeal and dismissed the plaintiff's suit and set -aside the judgment and decree of the Revenue Appellate Authority. The learned -members of the Board of Revenue observed that the present Khasra No. 121 has been constituted out of old Khasra No. 107 and old Khasra No. 108, on that basis, it was observed that the plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration for l/4th share in the entire new Khasra No. 121. It was also observed that the plaintiff wrongly averred in the plaint that the new Khasra No. 121 is constituted out of old Khasra Nos. 107 and 109. This statement is not based on fact so the whole basis of the plaint does -away and on such a consideration it was observed that the Revenue Appellate Authority seriously erred in declaring the plaintiffs as Khatedars to the extent of 1/4th share in Khasra No. 121. The other ground on which the appeal was allowed was the Jai Ram and Jagta were necessary parties as they were recorded Khatedars to the extent of 1/4th share in Khasra No. 107. For these reasons, the learned members of the Board of Revenue set -aside the judgement and decree of Revenue Appellate Authority and accepted the appeal and dismissed the plaintiff's suit.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , the writ petition is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the learned Members of the Board of Revenue are set -aside and the plaintiff's suit is decree to this extent that the entry of the defendants in the revenue record regarding 1/4th share possessed by the plaintiff -petitioners in respect of the land of Khasra No. 107 (old) forming part of Khasra No. 121 (new) is bad and ineffective against the petitioners.