Alok Sharma, J. - (1.) THE petitioners -plaintiffs (hereinafter 'the plaintiffs') challenge the judgment dated 12 -12 -2000 passed by the Board of Revenue Ajmer (hereinafter 'the Board') dismissing their second appeal. Also under challenge is the order dated 1 -3 -2001, whereby the plaintiffs' review petition against the judgment dated 12 -12 -2000 was dismissed.
(2.) THE facts of the case are that the respondent -defendant Gomda (hereinafter 'the defendant'), a scheduled caste, was at the relevant time the recorded tenant of several bighas in khasra No. 189/15 and 209/3.03 situate in village Kadayanohar Tehsil Chhabra. Out of the aforesaid land, the plaintiffs purchased 2 bighas as detailed in the plaint (hereinafter 'the suit land') from the defendant through a registered sale -deed dated 22 -5 -1974 for a consideration of Rs. 13000/ -, and came into possession. In the year 1986 the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in the court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chhabra, District Baran against the defendant alleging that the defendant was threatening to forcibly take back the possession of the suit land. Alternatively adverse possession of the suit land was also claimed since after execution of the registered sale -deed on 22 -5 -1974 the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land for over twelve years. The suit was opposed. Considering the pleadings and evidence of both the parties, the trial court vide judgment dated 7 -7 -1993 concluded that the sale of the suit land through registered sale -deed 22 -5 -1974 by the defendant to the plaintiffs was hit by Section 42(b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter 'the 1955 Act') as the vendor was of "Nayak" caste - -a scheduled one as notified and the purchaser not so. Therefore the sale deed dated 22 -5 -1974 was null and void. The Tehsildar was directed to initiate proceedings under Section 175 of the 1955 Act for dispossessing both the plaintiffs and the defendant from the suit land.
(3.) THE judgment dated 7 -7 -1993 passed by the trial court was assailed both by the plaintiffs (411/1994) and the defendant (205/1993) in appeals before the Revenue Appellate Authority Kota. The plaintiffs aggrieved of the dismissal and the defendant of the action of dispossession for reason of the unauthorised and illegal sale of his khatedari rights. Vide judgment dated 11 -7 -1997 appeals filed by both the plaintiffs and the defendant were dismissed.;