Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by four defendant -petitioners, namely, Pratap S/o. Shri Hiralal, Chhitar Lal S/o. Shri Hiralal, Chouth Mal S/o. Shri Ram Chandra and Ganesh @ Ganeshram S/o. Shri Dhanna Lal, challenging judgment dated 21.06.2008 of the Board of Revenue in Reference No. Appeal/Decree/4183/2001/Baran, judgment dated 23.06.2001 of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota, in Appeal No. 216/2001 and judgment dated 19.02.2001 of the Sub Divisional Officer, Baran in Case No. 125/1989.
(2.) THE Sub Divisional Officer, Baran, by aforesaid judgment and decree, allowed the suit filed by original plaintiff Dakhan Bai W/o Chatra, predecessor in title of Dev Lal, plaintiff -respondent No. 4 herein, under Section 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act of 1955') against defendant -petitioners.
(3.) THE suit was filed on the premise that Dakhan Bai was khatedar tenant of lands measuring 17 bigha 14 biswa bearing khasra Nos. 42, 387, 452, 455, 459, 460, 464, 465 and 470 in village Dugari, Tehsil Mangrole, District Kota. She was a poor lady and taking advantage of this situation, the defendant -petitioners made encroachment over said land in Samvat 2030. She made several requests to them but they did not remove the encroachment, therefore, lastly she filed the suit. The notices were issued. In the written statement, the defendant -petitioners pleaded that during pendency of the suit, Smt. Dakhan Bai died and respondent No. 4 Dev Lal was brought on record as her legal heir, who claimed to be her legal heir on the basis of a will, which is said to have been executed by Dakhan Bai. Defendant -petitioners filed amended written statement contending that since Jadav Bai, mother of original plaintiff Dakhan Bai, sold the aforesaid land to defendant -petitioners, Dakhan Bai got no right over the said land and therefore the will executed by her in favour of Dev Lal with regard to disputed land had no effect. They claimed that they were in possession over the disputed land for last more than 60 years, and they were paying the revenue. In Samvat 2023 Jadav Bai executed a sale deed in favour of defendant -petitioners for sale consideration of Rs. 13800/ -. The alleged sale -deed was said to have been executed by Jadav Bai, mother of plaintiff Dakhan Bai, on Jestha Badhi 4 of Samvat 2013. They were in cultivatory possession of the land for long and thus they acquired title by virtue of adverse possession. The suit filed by Dakhan Bai was barred by limitation because it was not filed within 12 years from the date of adverse possession got by defendant -petitioners. It was alleged that aforesaid sale -deed was authored by Ram Narain and contained signatures of Jadav Bai, author Ram Narain, witness Prabhu and thumb impression of another witness Mangi Lal. While Ram Narain stated that the said document was prepared in the bungalow of Ram Pratap, whereas witness Mangi Lal (DW -1), in his cross -examination, admitted that Ram Narain prepared this document in his house. Their statements were thus found contradictory. The alleged sale -deed was neither attested nor registered. It was admitted in the course of argument that author of the document Ram Narain was real brother of defendant No. 5 Bhairon Lal. The age of Jadav Bai was stated to be 75 years. Her thumb impressions were not clear. The other witness Prabhu was not even produced. Witness Mangi Lal stated that defendants were already in possession of the land much before the date of the execution of the aforesaid document and in cross -examination this witness admitted that Jadav Bai used to get the land cultivated from them on crop sharing basis.;