ALOK SHARMA,J. - (1.) The petitioners-defendants (hereinafter "the defendants") challenge the judgment and decree dated 10.09.2009 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer (hereinafter "the Board"). Thereby the Board has set aside the judgment and decree dated 19.09.1997, passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Ajmer (hereinafter "RAA") upholding the judgment and decree date 08.02.1979, passed by the Assistant Collector (U/N), Ajmer dismissing the respondents-plaintiffs' (hereinafter "the plaintiffs) suit for permanent injunction under Section 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter "the Act of 1955").
(2.) The facts relevant to the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit bearing No.38/1978 in the Court of the Assistant Collector, Ajmer on 01.09.1975 stating that they by way of an oral sale purchased land ad measuring 4 bishwa 10 biswa 10 biswansi in khasra No.802 from one Nauratmal on 26.08.1970 and came into possession. It was submitted that consequently in the khasra girdawari of samvat 2030 and 2031 (1974 and 1975) the plaintiffs' possession was reflected. And that possession continued thereafter and yet the defendants were bent upon dispossessing the plaintiffs from the land in issue. A decree of permanent injunction was therefore sought against the defendants. On service of notice, a written statement of denial was filed by the defendants stating that they were the recorded khatedar of the suit land and had been in its possession in all times. The plaintiffs' possession was denied. It was submitted that the very foundation of the plaintiffs' case of having purchased the suit land from Nauratmal under an oral sale or otherwise, was baseless as he at no point of time had any khatedari therein, nor was even otherwise authorised to make the sale as alleged. The trial court i.e. Assistant Collector, Ajmer found the plaintiffs and the defendants at odds on six issues on the basis of their respective pleadings. Issue No.1 was as to whether the plaintiffs were in cultivatory possession of the suit land. Issue No.2 was as to whether the suit land was entered in the name of the plaintiffs in the revenue records. Issue No.3 was as to whether on 24.08.1975 the defendants had, as alleged by the plaintiffs, sought to damage standing crops tended by the plaintiffs. Issue No.4 was as to whether the suit land was ancestral property of the defendants and in their cultivatory possession. Issue No.5 was as to whether Nauratmal had any right, title or authority of the defendants to sell the suit land to the plaintiffs as alleged. Issue No.6 related to relief.
(3.) On consideration of the evidence laid by the respective parties, the Assistant Collector found that in khasra girdawari of samvat 2030 and 2031, even though first recorded in the name of Shyonath and Anr., the defendants, had been changed in column 24 and the name of the plaintiffs, Madhu and others entered. The plaintiffs were thus found by the trial court in possession of the suit land as the contra oral evidence of the defendants was found insufficient to displace the entry in favour of the plaintiffs in the khasra girdawari. On issue No.2, the trial court however held that the plaintiffs had failed to establish that they were the khatedar-tenant of the suit land. On issue No.3 it was found that there was no evidence on record to establish the plaintiffs' case that on 24.08.1997, the defendants had sought to damage the standing crops of the plaintiffs. On issue No.4, reiterating that the defendants had failed to prove that they were in cultivatory possession of the suit land, the Assistant Collector noted that however the revenue receipt produced by the defendants showed that they i.e. Shyonath had been paying the rent for the suit land covered under khata No.263 and had also earlier recorded as its khatedar in the jamabandi of samvat 2023 to 2026 and would be deemed to have so continued as there was no subsequent alteration in the jamabandi by an order of a competent court or sale/assignment in accordance with law. The suit land was found to be ancestral property. On issue No.5, the trial court held that on the basis of statement of Nauratmal himself as DW-2, it was clearly established that the plaintiffs' case of having purchased the land from Nauratmal under an oral sale for a consideration of Rs. 99/- was disproved for reasons of Nauratmal's denial and also the fact that Nauratmal had no right, title or interest over the suit land or authority to convey the land to the plaintiffs by an oral sale or otherwise. In the circumstances, the suit was dismissed with costs on 08.02.1979.;