- (1.) THIS is a second appeal under sec, 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act against the judgment and decree of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur dated 8-5-72.
(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that Partha filed a suit against Kishan and others on 21-6-66 under secs. 88 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act with regard to arazi No. 4/50/1 measuring 6 bighas situated in village Sodalpuria Tehsil Pratapgarh in the court of the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Pratapgarh. After framing the issues and recording the evidence of the parties the learned Sub-Divisional Officer decreed the suit on 28-4-70. An injunction was issued against the defendants restraining them from in any way interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. THE defendants feeling aggrieved against the judgment of the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Pratapgarh filed an appeal before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority on 22-6 70. THE learned Revenue Appellate Authority accepted the defendants' appeal on 8-5-72. THE judgment of the learned trial court was set aside. THE plaintiff feeling aggrieved against the judgment of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority dated 8-5-72 filed this second appeal before this Court on 31-7-72. The respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties have been considered and the record of the case perused. The contention of the plaintiff appellant is that he has been cultivating the land in dispute in khasra No. 4/50/1 for the last 6 years from the institution of the suit. He has further contended that he had paid Rs. 300/- for the land and that he acquired khatedari rights on the suit land. In the revenue records* the land has been recorded in the name of Mst. Jahooran. Mst. Jahooran has sold this land to the defendants by a registered sale-deed. The entire land is about 50 bighas. The plaintiff-appellant Partha claims his possession over 6 bighas of land Rangrej has stated Mst. Jahooran has not entered the witness box but her son Bhoora that the plaintiff has been in possession of the land in dispute for the last 5 6 years. Some of the witnesses of the defendants have also admitted the possession of the plaintiff. The learned trial court has held that the plaintiff has been in possession of the land. The possession of the plaintiff over the suit land has also been upheld by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority. Thus there is a concurrent finding of fact by both the learned lower courts so far as the possession on the land in dispute is concerned. The learned Revenue Appellate Authority has however held that the plaintiff has failed to establish his sub-tenancy over the suit land. The learned trial court however relied on the receipt for Rs. 300/- Ex. 4. Even the statement of the Patwari P. W. 2 justifies the possession of the plaintiff and payment of Lagan by him. The learned trial court accordingly issued an injunction against the defendants protecting the possession of the plaintiff. The learned Revenue Appellate Authority did not disagree with the findings of fact regarding possession, but held that a suit under secs. 88 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act could be filed by a tenant alone and as the plaintiff has failed to establish himself to be a tenant or sub-tenant on the suit land the suit was dismissed. The plaintiff has not sought any relief under sec. 92a of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. In 1968 R. R. D. 250 (Nandgir vs. Board of Revenue) it was held by the Rajasthan High Court that where a plaintiff is entitled to a relief on the admitted facts, it is the bounden duty of the court to grant such relief. If such a relief is not granted it leads to multiplicity of proceedings and unnecessary litigation. Sec. 92a of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act reads as under. Suit for injunction - Except as otherwise, specifically provided elsewhere in this Act, any person may sue in respect of all or any of his rights conferred by this Act, for an injunction in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Chapter X of the specific Relief Act, 1887. Beniram PW 2 is the Patwari of the village. He has stated that Partha's house is on the land in dispute and that Partha lives there. He has further stated that there is a well also on the suit land and that Partha is in possession of the land in dispute. He has also testified that Ex. 1 and Ex. 2 are the Lagan receipts which has been paid by Partha. These receipts are said to be in his hand. The Lagan was deposited in the khata of Ratna. In the khasra girdawari for St. 2016 to 201 Partha has been shown to be in the cultivatory possession. The whole dispute has arisen as Mst. Jahooran has exeputed a registered sale deed in favour of the defendants. There is no evidence on record on the basis of which it could be said that the defendants were put into possession of the land in dispute by Mst. Jahooran. The possession of the plaintiff over the suit land is well established and the defendants cannot be permitted to take law in their hands and be allowed to eject Partha by force and otherwise than in accordance with law. Possession is nine points in law and has to be protected against forceful ejectment. For the reasons stated above the appeal deserves to be accepted. The judgment and decree of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority is hereby set aside and that of the trial court is hereby confirmed with costs throughout. .;