Alok Sharma, J. - (1.) Under challenge in this petition, purported to be one under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is the judgment dated 22 -3 -2002 passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan Ajmer (hereinafter 'the Board'), whereby the judgment and decree dated 26 -7 -1997 passed by Settlement Officer cum Revenue Appellate Authority Kota (RAA) has been set aside and that of the Assistant Collector Baran's judgment dated 17 -9 -1996 restored, whereby the suit filed by Ramnathi Bai, now deceased and represented through her legal heirs (hereinafter 'the plaintiff') under Sec. 88, 89, 90 and 183 of the Rajasthan tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1955') for declaration, permanent injunction and eviction of defendant Janki Lal was dismissed.
(2.) The facts of the case are that the plaintiff Ramnathi Bai filed a suit under Ss. 88, 89, 90 and 183 of the Act of 1955 on 6 -1 -1990. It was averred that the suit land, particulars of which were set out in para No. 1 of the plaint, admeasuring 33 bigha 4 biswa in village Jagannathpura, Tehsil and District Baran stood in the name of one Ganga Bai widow of Bheru. On Ganga Bai's death the khatedari in the suit land devolved on her daughter Narbada Bai w/o Narayan, under mutation No. 104 dated 4 -4 -1928 duly attested. It was stated that the plaintiff was the only daughter of Narbada Bai (the date of Narbada Bai's death is not on record). It was stated that Narbada Bai, subsequent to death of her husband Narayan, had entered into relationship with one Ganpat s/o Deva Dhakar, in order to look after the suit property and cultivate & manage the same on her behalf. It was stated that Narbada Bai, the erstwhile khatedar, made an application for mutation of the suit land in the name of Ganpat for the limited purpose of acting as her "parokar" (agent) qua the suit land. Consequent thereto mutation No. 720 dated 27 -5 -1950 in respect of suit land was opened in the name of Ganpat s/o Deva Dhakar. The said mutation was duly attested. It was stated that following Narbada Bai's death, as her natural born daughter and sole heir, the plaintiff Ramnathi Bai was entitled to khatedari rights in the suit land. It was submitted that however the defendant Janki Lal had on misrepresentation before the Assistant Collector Baran on 20 -3 -1980, following the death of Ganpat s/o Deva Dhakar, unauthorisedly claimed khatedari of the suit land as his successor and got his name mutated in respect thereof in the revenue records. It was stated that Ganpat was not entitled to khatedari rights over the suit land as they were never lawfully transferred to him by way of registered sale -deed or devolution by way of succession. Nor could Janki Lal claim succession of the suit land through him. It was prayed that defendant Janki lal be evicted from the suit land and the plaintiff be declared as khatedar and put into possession thereof with further protection by way of injunction against interference with the use and enjoyment of the suit land.
(3.) On receipt of summons of suit, Janki lal appeared but did not file written statement. Proceedings were taken ex -parte against him. The plaintiff produced herself in evidence purportedly proving from the Jamabandi of Svt. 1982 -83 (1926 -27) Ex. 2 that Narbada Bai was the erstwhile recorded khatedar of the suit land. Other documents Mutation No. 104 as Ex. 1, Mutation No. 720 dated 27 -5 -1950 in the name of Ganpat Ex. 3, Khasra Parishodhan Ex. 4, judgment dated 19 -12 -1983 passed by the Land Revenue Officer Ex. 5, Mutation of Svt.2031 -34 Ex. 6, judgment dated 23 -1 -1982 passed by the Assistant Land Revenue Officer Ex. 7, Mutation of Svt. 2038 -57 Ex. 8 and notice Ex. 9 (sic.8) were also exhibited. The plaintiff examined herself as Pw.1, Gyarsi Ram Pw.2, and Gordhan Lal as Pw.3. The Assistant Collector Baran however vide judgment dated 17 -9 -1996 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff, primarily on the ground that suit land had been entered in the khatedari of Ganpat vide mutation No. 720 on 27 -5 -1950 and following Ganpat's death, the defendant Janki Lal had succeeded and his name entered in the record of rights vide mutation No. 133 of 8 -3 -1983. The plaintiff Ramnathi Bai, being unrelated to Ganpat, was not entitled either to declaration of her khatedari rights to the suit land, or a decree of eviction against defendant Janki Lal -the successor of Ganpat.;