- (1.) THOUGH the matter is posted for final orders on the stay application but, with the consent and at the request of the learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the issues involved, we have heard this appeal at this stage itself.
(2.) PUT in brief, the relevant aspects of the matter remain that the plaintiff -appellant filed a suit for partition, as also for declaration of right, in relation to the agricultural land in question that had earlier been recorded in the name of his grand father. The defendants filed the written statement and also took a counter claim seeking declaration of their khatedari rights over a part of the land in question. Seven issues were framed by the learned Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bhadra ('the SDO') and the parties led their evidence. Ultimately, the learned SDO proceeded to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff by the judgment and decree dated 26.06.2003. A bare look at the judgment and decree dated 26.06.2003 is sufficient to find that after reciting the pleadings of the parties, the issues framed, and the evidence adduced, the learned SDO observed that the learned counsel for the plaintiff prayed for decreeing the suit whereas the learned counsel for the defendant prayed for dismissing the suit and decreeing the counter claim. Thereafter, the learned SDO merely stated his conclusion that the suit was required to be decreed and accordingly, proceeded to decree the suit declaring the plaintiff as khatedar in relation to 29 kilas of land at Chak 18 and 5 bighas of land at Chak 19 AMS. In the appeal taken by the defendant, the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Hanumangarh took note of the submissions of the parties and referred to the previous decisions between the parties concerning the land in question including the judgment dated 18.05.1990 passed by the Board of Revenue in Appeal No. 212/1982. The learned Revenue Appellate Authority found that the judgment and decree had rightly been passed by the SDO and dismissed the appeal.
(3.) HOWEVER , it was submitted by the defendant in further appeal before the Board of Revenue that the issues had not been decided as per the requirements of the Order XX Rule 5 CPC; and the learned Revenue Appellate Authority too did not carry out the requisite compliance of the requirements of law.;