- (1.) THIS is a second appeal against the concurrent decisions of the S. D. O. Partapgarh and the Additional Commissioner Udaipur, by which the appellant was declared as a trespasses and ordered to be ejected.
(2.) WE have carefully gone through the record of the case and heard the counsel for both parties. The plaintiff respondents' case is that him muafi land No. 1147/2-18 and 1149/1-7 was cultivated by Ida deceased as his sub-tenant who relinquished it on 22-1-50 and, made over possession to the respondents but the appellant defendant entered this land unlawfully and took possession over it about 8 months back. The plaintiff,therefore,prayed that as the defendant-appellant was a trespasser, he should be evicted and possession be restored to him. The defendant's reply was that he was the legal heir of the deceased who was not a shikmi but a khatedar, that the letter transferred the khata by executing a deed of gift in his favour during his life time and that as he cultivatory possession of that the land in dispute for the last 5 to 7 years, he could not be evicted from it. The trial court observed that the appellant was neither a legal heir of the deceased nor cultivated the land as his shikmi, but was a trespasser. Accordingly the suit was decreed. In appeal, the Additional Commissioner held that the status of Ida was not that of a khatedar as he was recorded as a shikmi of the respondent in the khasra girdawari of Svt. 2007,that had not acquired the tights of a khatedar, and could not, therefore, be succeeded by any one of his reversioners, because, a sub-tenants' rights extinguished as soon as he died or surrendered his holding. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. Hence this second appeal. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that this land was lawfully transferred to him by Ida who was a khatedar by executing deed of gift in favour of the appellant as one of his nearest reversioners. This fact however, has not been proved by any evidence and both the courts below have disbelieved this contention. We are unable to find anything on record to justify any interference on this finding of fact. This contention must also fail on the ground that in Svt. 2007 Ida himself was described as a shikmi and his rights were neither heritable nor transferable, nor could he create a sub-tenancy in favour of Lal Mohammed, as contained in para 6 Chaptar 11 (ii) of Qanun Mehkma Mal, Pratapgarh. In the circumstances,the irresistible conclusion is that the appellant could not show as to how he came in possession of this land. Both the courts below have, therefore, rightly held that he was a trespasser. The learned Advocate has not also been able to show as to how the decision of the lower-court could be challenged on any of the grounds mentioned in sec 20 (iii) of the Revenue Courts Procedure and Jurisdiction Act. The result is that the decision given by the lower-courts is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. .;