- (1.) A suit u/ss. 88 & 89 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was filed by the plaintiff-applicants in the court of S. D. O. , Jalore for a declaration that the land covered by khasra number 294 & 298 measuring 30 bighas & 3 biswas situated in village Sankarana was in their khatedari and prayed that necessary corre-ction in the land records may be made to the same effect. The suit was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that the defendants-respondents were members of scheduled caste and except the bald statement of Tulsia there is no other evidence to support the possession of the plaintiffs. It was further held that the present suit had been filed by the plaintiffs to bye-pass the bar of transfer or sale on members of scheduled castes in favour of non-scheduled caste persons as provided u/s. 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The learned R. A. A. in appeal upheld the above view of the trial court and rejected the appeal. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the two courts below, the present appeal has been filed before us.
(2.) WE have heard the counsel for the parties and examined the record. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that sec. 42 of the Act has no relevance in the present suit. The defendants were the halts of the plaintiffs and not the Khatedars. The continued possession of the plaintiffs had been provided both by oral and documentary evidence. He stated that the khasra girdawari entries of St. 2013 & 2014 prove the cultivation of the plaintiffs which is further supported by the oral evidence of the defendant No. 1 Tulsia. He invited our attention to the affidavits filed by the defendants to the effect that they were balis of the plaintiffs. He stated that the defendants have not even filed their written statement and the trial court passed ex-parte proceedings on 6-2-64. All these show that the defendants have admitted their claim. From this premise the learned counsel argued that the two courts below have, therefore, committed an illegality in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs without examining the oral and documentary evidence which was clearly in favour of the plaintiffs. We find that the two courts below have examined both oral and documentary evidence. In St. 2012 the land had been entered as Padat Kadim. In the Khasra Girdawaris from St. 2013 to 2017, the name of the plaintiffs does not find any place. Mere receipts of Bighori will not establish any right. We, therefore, agree with the findings of the courts below that the plaintiffs have failed to establish their case for declaration and correction of entries. From the affidavits filed by the defendants admitting the plaintiffs to be the tenants of the land in dispute and their failure to contest the suit and oral evidence of Tulsia in support of the plaintiffs case clearly goes to establish that the plaintiffs have filed the present suit to save themselves from the purview of sec. 42 of the Act under which such transfer or sale have been restricted. It is well settled that the scope of appeal under sec. 224 of the Act where there is a concurrent finding of fact would be limited to the conditions laid down in that section, Even if the appreciation of evidence made by the lower appellate court is patently erroneous and the finding of fact recorded in consequence is grossly incorrect that cannot be said to introduce a substantial error or defect in the procedure. Accordingly, no interference is contemplated by the appellate court with the conclusions of fact recorded by the lower appellate court, however, erroneous the said conclusions may appear to be to the second appellate court. The learned R. A. A. has rightly observed that when during settlement operations, the parachas were issued in favour of the defendants neither of the parties raised any such objection which clearly shows that the land in dispute was actually in the cultivatory possession of the defendants. As discussed above, we do not find any of the conditions existing in the present appeal to warrant our interference u/s. 224 of the Act. In the result, we reject this appeal. . ;