Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by three petitioners, namely, Mor Mukat Singh, Uday Bhan Singh and Vijay Singh, who are sons of Shri Soor Singh, challenging order dated 02.01.1987 (Annexure -10), orders dated 25.11.1980 (Annexure -8), 04.05.1994 (Annexure -11) and 27.09.1994 (Annexure -12) of the Board of Revenue, with further prayer that the suit filed by them against defendant -respondents No. 3 to 9, for ejectment, recovery of possession and compensation, be decreed.
(2.) AFOREMENTIONED suit for ejectment was filed by plaintiff -petitioners on 13.07.1953 by the petitioners and their mother Ratan Kanwar, on the basis of right claimed by them under Section 136 of the Jaipur State Land Grants Tenures Act and Section 93 of the Jaipur Tenancy Act. Section 93 of the Jaipur Tenancy Act enabled a tenant ejected or prevented from obtaining possession of his holding or any part thereof, otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the law for the time being in force, to sue the person so ejecting him or keeping him out of possession. Reliance was placed on Section 136 of the Jaipur State Grants Land Tenures Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act of 1947'), which provided that in a suit for possession brought by a tenant in accordance with the provisions of sub -section (1) of Section 93 of the Jaipur Tenancy Act, the landholder and every other person, who had wrongfully ejected him or had taken over possession after such ejectment, must be joined as defendants in the suit.
(3.) THE case set up by the plaintiffs in the plaint was that they were "Chhut Bhaias", (family of younger brother (and his descendants) of Thikanedar) of Thikana Gotor. Their father had died in the year 1949 when they were still minor. Their mother had taken defendant No. 1 Ram Sukha, as 'sajhi in kasht' for Samvat 2007, according to which permission of cultivation was given to defendant No. 1 Ram Sukha on understanding of sharing the crop between the petitioners and him. In doing so, their mother supplied him bullocks and implements for the purpose of cultivation. Defendant No. 1 Ram Sukha later tried to take undue advantage of minority of the plaintiffs and used the land for himself and also included defendants No. 4 and 5, namely, Chhotiya and Ram Chandra, in the cultivation. Defendants No. 2 and 3 were the sons of Ram Sukha and defendant No. 6 Bhim Singh, was main 'jagirdar', who had been made a defendant because of the provisions of Section 136 of the Act of 1947. When the plaintiffs came to know of inclusion of Chhotiya and Ram Chandra in Ashadh of Samvat 2009, they immediately asked these persons not to cultivate the land. They also withdrew the bullocks and implements given to Ram Sukha for use in cultivation as per the agreement with their mother. Defendants No. 1 to 5 tried to take possession of the land by tying their cattle thereon, owing to which, a dispute arose between the parties. Criminal case was also registered. Defendants took wrongful possession of the land in Samvat 2009 and cultivated it. The prayer for ejectment of defendants, restoration of possession and compensation was also made. Defendant Ram Sukha contested the suit stating that the well on the land has been constructed by his forefathers and that their family had been cultivating the land for a very long time. The Assistant Collector, Sawaimadhopur, after framing issues and recording the evidence of the parties, decreed the suit and judgment and decree has been confirmed in appeal by the Additional Commissioner on 31.05.1958. The Additional Commissioner stated that there was ample evidence on record to show that after the death of the father of plaintiffs, defendant Ram Sukha was made 'sajhedar' in Samvat 2007. Defendant Ram Sukha had admitted this in his statement recorded on 19.05.1953 before the Assistant Settlement Officer that after death of father of plaintiffs, he cultivated the land in dispute on 'sajha' and had paid 'seer' (share in the crop) to plaintiff -petitioner Mor Mukat Singh for two years. The 'sajha' was extinguished because he had no bullocks etc. The Additional Commissioner took the statement to mean that the 'sajha' of the defendants was extinguished in Samvat 2009 and later they forcibly ejected the plaintiffs and cultivated the land in dispute. It was held that defendant Ram Sukha could not be called a co -tenant but merely a 'sajhedar' and, according to 1050 R.R.D. 170, a 'sajhedar' admitted by a tenant without the written consent of the Zamindar, could not acquire co -tenancy rights and it was open to the tenant to terminate the relationship and eject him as a trespasser.;