RAJESH BALIA,J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this petition, by one Ladu Ram S/o Jiya Ram challening the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 8th March 1995 and order passed by Sub -Divisional Officer dated 28th March 1987 Annx. 3 and Annx. 1 respectively, may be summarised as under. The land in a joint Khata was held by two brothers Ramu Ram and Raju Ram, Ramu Ram had three sons; Bhagirath, Phusa Ram and Dalu Ram, Bhagirath's sons are respondents No. 4 to 6, Phusa Ram's sons are respondents No. 7 to 10 and Dalu Ram's sons in the present petition are respondents No. 15 to 18. Raju Ram had only one son Jiya Ram. Jiya Ram had two sons Uda Ram and Ladu Ram. The said land was partitioned by a decree passed by the Court of Sub -Divisional Officer, Suratgarh on 23.8.1976 in Suit No. 12/1972 under which sons of Dalu Ram, who are respondents No. 15 to 18 in this petition, were, allotted 42 bighas and 14 biswas of land in their share comprised in Murabbas No. 98/385, 99/385 and 98/386 in Chak 8 SPD. During the pendency of the partition suit, the respondents No. 15 to 18 have sold 44 bighas and 11 biswas of land in favour of respondent No. 3 Manphool S/o Puran Ram and his three brothers Mani Ram, Bhup Singh and Girdhari, respondents No. 12 to 14. After the decree of partition was passed on 23.8.1976, the land falling to the share of respective share -holders was mutated in their respective names. Since the 'transferees from respondents No. 15 to 18 namely Surjaram, Ramrakh and Hari Ram and Hetram, all sons of Dalu Ram, had not been brought on record during those proceedings, the mutation of land falling to share of Dalu Ram/his sons was recorded in their names, and other land was also recorded in the names of the parties to the suit. Raju Ram and Ramu Ram both have expired. After this mutation was made In land records in accordance with the decree passed in the partition suit, a suit was filed by the respondent No. 3 Manphool Ram impleading all the parties to the partition suit as well as three co -purchasers with him as defendants. The suit was for declaration of his Khatedari rights in the 44 bighas and 11 biswas of land transferred to them during the pendency of the suit by sons of Dalu Ram and correcting the land records to that extend. Modification of the decree passed in suit No. 12 of 1972 was also sought by reducing the share granted to sons of Jiya Ram by reducing the allotted share from 34 bighas 17 biswas to 11 bighas only to make good deficiency in the share of land allotted to Dalu Ram and his sons, which was less than the sale of land made in them by sons of Dalu Ram. The aforesaid suit was decreed by the Sub -Divisional Officer on 28th March, 1987. Present petitioner, son of Jiya Ram was proceeded ex -parte. Thereafter, having come to know about this modification resulting in reduction in the shares allotted to the present petitioner and his brother respondent No. 11 Nand Ram (Uda Ram), who were defendants No. 8 and 9 respectively in the suit filed by Manphool Ram, Ladu Ram the present petitioner filed an application for setting aside the ex -parte decree passed against him inter alia on the grounds that the notice of the suit had not been served on him. Learned Sub Divisional Magistrate vide his order dt. 4.1.1992 found that the notices of the suit had not been served on defendant Ladu Ram, the present petitioner, condoned the delay in making application for setting aside ex -parte decree and set aside the ex -parte decree passed in favour of Manphool Ram and his brothers. Against the said order dated 4.1.1992 the plaintiff Manphool Ram preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue, which allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 4.1.1992 passed by the SDO setting aside the ex -parte order and restored the decree passed by him on 28th March, 1987 by finding that notices for the hearing of 29.10.1986 were served on the brother of Ladu Ram and therefore, the service was sufficient. In these circumstances, this petition has been filed.
(3.) REPLY has been filed on behalf of the contesting respondent No.3.;