Arun Bhansali, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the judgment of the Board of Revenue ('Board') dated 11.1.1996, whereby on reference made to the 3rd member on account of disagreement between two members vide order dated 20.11.1993, the appeal filed by the petitioners against the judgment dated 18.5.1985 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority ('RAA') has been dismissed.
(2.) THE present litigation has a chequered history, the dispute pertains to land comprised in Khasara No. 767 (New No. 1351) situated at Village Nathdwara which stood in khatedari of one Fateh Lal S/o. Ekling Das; Lehar Bai W/o Fateh Lal lived separately with her son Manohar Lal since 1958; it is claimed that on 26.12.1958, Fateh Lal executed a document (Tehrir) giving land in dispute to Lehar Bai for her maintenance; on 10.8.1959, Fateh Lal filed a suit under Section 180 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ('the Act') against his son Manohar Lal & Radha Kishan, Liladhar and one Smt. Chunni Bai W/o Radha Kishan in the Court of SDO, Udaipur on the allegation that he was the owner of the land in dispute and the defendants were interfering with his cultivation; the defendants resisted the suit inter -alia on the ground that the land in dispute was given to Smt. Lehar Bai in the year 1958 and defendants were cultivating the land on her behalf; on 25.10.1960, the trial court dismissed the suit filed by Fateh Lal, though Lehar Bai was not a party to the suit, although an application seeking her impleadment was filed and was pending. Feeling aggrieved, Fateh Lal filed appeal; the RAA by its judgment dated 6.2.1962 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back after impleading Lehar Bai as party; the order dated 6.2.1962 was upheld by the Board by its judgment dated 14.9.1962.
(3.) THE suit filed by Fateh Lal was decreed by the SDO, Udaipur on 29.4.1967 and the appeal filed by Lehar Bai and Manohar Lal was dismissed by RAA by its judgment dated 24.5.1967. The Board, however, set -aside the judgments of SDO, Udaipur and RAA and remanded the matter back to the SDO by its judgment dated 3.1.1968 directing that a fresh judgment be delivered after hearing the parties as the judgments of both the courts below contained serious errors of law and facts. It may be noticed that during the proceedings before various courts, the land in dispute remained in the possession of receiver.;