Govind Mathur, J. - (1.) To challenge the judgment dated 18.4.2012, passed by learned Single Bench, this appeal is before us.
(2.) Facts of the case in brief arc as follows:- A suit as per provisions of Section 88 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1955') was preferred before the Court of Assistant Collector, Sirohi by one Shri Ugra Bharti to have a decree for getting mutation of certain agriculture land in his name. As per plaintiff Ugra Bharti (now represented by his legal representatives) the land in question was purchased by him through a registered sale deed dated 16.9.1976 and thereafter he was in possession thereof. Canceling the sale aforesaid, the same land was again sold to defendant Ravta Bharti under a sale deed dated 11.4.1994 and on basis of that mutation entries in revenue records were made in his favour.
(3.) The suit aforesaid came to be decreed by judgment dated 7.2.2003. A challenge was given to the judgment and decree dated 7.2.2003 by defendant Ravta Bharti by way of filing an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sirohi as per provisions of Section 223 of the Act of 1955. The appeal also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 16.4.2006. After dismissal of the first appeal, a second appeal was filed as per Section 224 of the Act of 1955 before the Board of Revenue Rajasthan by present appellant petitioner Mahant Narayan Bharti. It was contended on behalf of the appellant petitioner that defendant appellant Shri Ravta Bharti died during pendency of the appeal and this fact was not brought into knowledge of the First Appellate Court, hence, the Court dismissed the appeal on merits. The dismissal of appeal on merits was nullity being a decree against a dead person. Beside this ground, the second appeal was also contested on merits. Learned Board of Revenue by its judgment dated 4.5.2011 dismissed the appeal by holding that - (1) Appellant Mahant Narayan Bharti did not prefer any application to bring himself on record as legal representative of Ravta Bharti and Counsel of Ravta Bharti contested first appeal on merits before the First Appellate Court, therefore, no interference therein is required on a technical ground; and (2) The land in question was sold to Ugra Bharti under a sale deed dated 16.9.1976, as such, the second sale under the sale deed dated 11.4.1994 is void and on basis of that no right could have been claimed by Ravta Bharti.;