SARDAR SADHU SINGH Vs. MOHAN SINGH
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
SARDAR SADHU SINGH
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS revision has been filed against the order of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota, dated 4. 4. 1966, whereby he accepted the appeal of the opposite party and made the temporary injunction issued by the trial court on 13. 10. 65 absolute.
(2.) IT transpires that during the course of a suit for permanent injunction filed by the opposite party an application was filed for temporary injunction which was granted initially on 13. 10. 65, but was subsequently vacated on 22. 12. 65 after hearing the objections.
Having felt aggrieved by this order, the opposite party filed an appeal before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority who accepted the appeal as stated above. This revision petition has been filed against that order.
A perusal of the impugned order shows that while accepting the appeal, the learned Revenue Appellate Authority was impressed by the document executed by the defendant-petitioner on 24. 7. 61 in favour of the plaintiff-opposite party, where by the possession of the land was transferred to the opposite party for 3 years, St. years 2018, 2019 and 2020. It was, further, stipulated therein that the girda-wari will, however, be done in the name of the defendant and if the defendant failed to pay Rs. 1300/- in St. year 2020, the plaintiff would be entitled to have the Teep done in his own name. As this document clearly states that the possession of the land had been transferred to the plaintiff, the learned Revenue Appellate Authority arrived at the conclusion that prima facie possession was that of the plaintiff. He further held that the balance of convenience also was in his favour. Accordingly, he accepted the appeal.
The main point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the possession was not transferred by virtue of this document. It is urged that this as in fact the point in dispute, particularly as the entries in the revenue records exist in favour of the defendant but the execution of the document, however, is not denied, it is at the same time urged that though the term of three years mentioned in the document expired in 1964, the suit was not filed until 13. 10. 65 and the Teep for the year 2021 was not done in favour of the plaintiff which would show that the defendant continued to be in possession.
I am not impressed by this argument. I agree with the learned Revenue Appellate Authority that the document clearly refers to the transfer of possession by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and there is no evidence of any subsequent surrender of land by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant. Therefore, the prima facie conclusion is that the land continues to be in the possession of the plaintiff. Whether the land has been transferred subsequently or not and whether a suit for permanent injunction can be maintained by the plaintiff are questions which would be determined following the trial of the suit, but so far as the question of temporary injunction is concerned, prima facie, the balance is in favour of the plaintiff.
This apart, the scope of sec. 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act is very limited. In the exercise of its revisional powers, it is not within the province of the Board normally to enter into the merits of the evidence. It can interfere only if the subordinate court appears to have exercised a jurisdiction, not vested in it by law or to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. If the lower court has applied its judicial mind to the facts of the case, it cannot be said to have acted illegally even if the finding of fact may be erroneous. Ordinarily, questions of fact are not considered in revision which is confined, only to legal defects. Of course, if the subordinate court fails to apply its judicial mind, it is a different matter and in such a case, the Board may interfere in revision.
As it is, no such condition exists in the present case to warrant the interference of this Board in revision. This revision petition, therefore, is hereby rejected with costs. .
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.