ARUN BHANSALI, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant.
(2.) THE appellant is aggrieved against dismissal of the suit by the trial court under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC as well as dismissal of the first appeal by the appellate court upholding the dismissal of the suit under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC. The facts in brief may be noticed thus: the appellant filed suit, inter alia, with the averments that she was using the land comprised in Aaraji No.6069/1642 in Khasra No.198 admeasuring 6 Bighas and 13 Biswas and is a recorded Khatedar of the said land. The land comprised in the other Khasras as indicated in para ­ 3 belonged to and was in possession of defendant Nos.1 to 15. It was claimed that for the purpose of going into the fields of the defendants a old way was also in existence and was in use, which was through Aaraji No.1646 - 1645 for going into Aaraji No.1647. There was no way from Aaraji belonging to the plaintiff. It was claimed that the defendant No.12 Ratja @ Ratan Lal filed an application before the Collector, Rajsamand, who has illegally and without jurisdiction has granted way from her field based on easement. The said order passed by the Collector was questioned on several grounds and ultimately following prayers were made: - .........[vernacular ommited text]...........
(3.) THE defendants filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC seeking to contend that the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred under Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ('the Act'). Reply thereof was filed by the appellant -plaintiff and the contention was disputed.;