Alok Sharma, J. - (1.) THIS petition purporting to be one under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India but in -fact relatable to Article 227 of the Constitution of India (as it is against the Judgment of the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer -hereinafter 'the Board') rendered on 2.04.2014) seeks setting aside of the judgment of the Board whereby the Board upset the judgment of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota (hereinafter 'the RAA') passed on 25.3.2011 and restored the judgment and decree dt. 19.8.2009 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Khanpur (hereinafter 'the SDO) dismissing the petitioners plaintiffs (hereinafter 'the plaintiffs') suit for declaration and partition under Secs. 88, 91, 89, 92A, 188 and 53 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1955'). I have heard learned counsel for the plaintiffs and perused the impugned judgment dt. 2.4.2014 passed by the Board.
(2.) AT the outset it would be in place to detail the limitations of this Court exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be exercised in the following situations: (i) Where important evidence has been over -looked; (ii) Where the governing legal provisions have been over -looked or misapplied resulting in an error apparent on the face of the record; and (iii) Where the Courts below have exceeded their jurisdiction and there is a failure of justice. It has also been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the powers of the Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, even though, unfettered, are subject to a high degree of discipline and interference thereunder has to be kept at the minimum. The said powers are to be exercised with care, circumspection caution and only where the superior Courts find that the Courts/Tribunal below are guilty of dereliction of duty or have adjudicated the issue before them contrary to the fundamental principles of law. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sadhna Lodh vs. National Insurance Company Limited, : 2003(3) SCC 524 has held that the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked merely to correct an error of law not apparent on the face of the record much less errors of fact as the Court is not exercising any appellate powers. It has been held that it is not permissible in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to review the evidence upon which the Courts below/Tribunals have proceeded to pass the order which is impugned before the High Court in a writ petition.
(3.) IN the context of the aforesaid limitations of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, a bare look at the impugned Judgment dt. 2.4.2014 passed by the Board and the Judgment of the SDO passed on 19.8.2009 indicates that it was not proved that Kalyan Bux had adopted Duli Chand and consequently the plaintiffs' suit based on such adoption was liable to fail.;