- (1.) INSTANT intra -court appeal has filed against order of the ld. Single Judge Dt. 07.04.2014 reversing order of the ld. Board of Revenue Dt. 18.04.2013 and restoring order of the ld. Sub -Divisional Officer, Fatehpur Shekhawati, District Sikar Dt. 26.12.2002 passed on application filed by the respondents u/O. 9 R. 13 r/w S. 151 CPC setting aside the alleged judgment and decree Dt. 28.07.1998 and liberty was granted to the respondents of filing written statement to the revenue suit No. 27/1998 being restored with a further direction to the revenue authority (SDO) to decide the matter in accordance with law.
(2.) THE salient facts which may be relevant for consideration of the present special appeal, as alleged, are that late Shri Jhuntha Ram was holding agricultural land at village Lavanda and Dhani Lavanda, Tehsil Fatehpur Shekhawati, District Sikar admeasuring 103 bighas 19 biswas. He had four sons namely Tansukh Ram, Gordhan Das, Balchand and Jaidev. It has been alleged that one of his son Jaidev went in adoption leaving behind three other sons claiming their rights over the subject land in question. A revenue suit u/S. 88 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 came to be filed by late Shri Tansukh, one of the son of late Shri Jhuntha Ram and father of present respondents No. 3 -8 in the year 1998 seeking declaration of khatedari rights in respect of agricultural land in his name inter -alia on the ground that late Shri Jhuntha Ram apart from agricultural properties indicated in the revenue suit, filed before the competent court of jurisdiction, had other properties in village Nichlaul, District Maharajganj (UP) which is equal to half of total holdings and Shri Gordhan Das and Balchand are permanent residents of village Nichlaul, District Maharajganj (UP) from their childhood, where they are taking care of Shri Jhuntha Ram. Shri Gordhan Das died in UP and his sons also settled there, taking care of the properties which originally belong to Shri Jhuntha Ram along with Balchand. It may be relevant to notice that despite this fact was in the knowledge of the respondents No. 3 -8 in the original revenue suit and plaintiff before the revenue court, still in the cause title, all the legal heirs of other co -sharers of properties, originally belonging to late Shri Jhuntha Ram, as they are residing and settled in village Nichlaul, District Maharajganj (UP), were shown as residents of village Lavanda, Tehsil Fatehpur Shekhawati, District Sikar. The notice of revenue suit came to be issued on 30.03.1998 and the Process Server made its report Dt. 01.04.1998 on the notices that defendants do not reside on the said address.
(3.) INDISPUTABLY , the notices were not served on either of the defendants before the revenue court, however, Shri Anil Mishra, Advocate appeared on behalf of such of the defendants who are not even served and filed vakalatnama on 07.04.1998 and a written statement was filed on behalf of such of the defendants on 21.04.1998 and the so -called alleged family settlement was prepared by the plaintiffs with signatures of defendants through Anil Mishra, Advocate came to be filed before the ld. Revenue Court on 27.05.1998 and on the basis of the so -called alleged family settlement, the court of ld. Sub -Divisional Officer passed the decree on 28.07.1998. Defendants before the ld. Revenue Court were completely unaware regarding the proceedings, if any, being initiated against them by the plaintiffs. However, the aforesaid decree Dt. 28.07.1998, as alleged, came to their notice only when they approached Halka Patwari to obtain copy of jamabandi on 04.04.2000 and at that stage they came to know that some revenue suit was filed against them by the plaintiffs on which notices were issued and on the basis of alleged family settlement, decree Dt. 28.07.1998 came to be passed by the court of ld. Sub -Divisional Officer and without any loss of time, the defendants filed application u/O.9 R.13 CPC before the court on 07.04.2000 and the plaintiffs filed reply to the said application and evidence was also recorded including one of the alleged attesting witness to the family settlement Shri Dudaram S/o. Chatruram Meghwal, who disputed his signatures and refuted that neither he was attesting witness to the document (family settlement) nor such compromise was ever signed by him. He has also filed his affidavit deposing that he is the only person named Dudaram, residing in Village Lavanda and the alleged family settlement was never arrived at between the parties and he has never signed the document (family settlement) as attesting witness which was made the basis for passing a decree by the ld. Revenue Court.;