- (1.) MST. Sua has filed this revision petition against the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota dated 19. 4. 1964 whereby he upheld the order of the trial Court dated 14. 9. 1964 rejecting the application of MST. Sua for being impleaded as a defendant in the plaintiff respondent's suit u/s 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act.
(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that in the suit of Jai Singh plaintiff filed u/s 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act against Tulsa, Badri, Batu and Sharvan respondents Nos. 2 to 5 for their ejectment as trespasser from khasra No. 57 consisting of 00. 8 biswas of land situated in village Kudawal, Tehsil Todabhim. District Sawai Madhopur, the plaintiff had alleged that the suit land was his khudkasht or khatedari land and that the respondents forcibly occupied the land. Badri and Batu were the sons of Hukam Singh Gujar and they pleaded that the suit land was cultivated by them as tenants from the time of the jagir of the plaintiff respondent. It is not disputed that Sua the present petitioner who is the widow of Hukam Singh and was the mother of Batu and Badri. Her application was that the suit land khasra No. 57 known as Pokarwala was in the tenancy of Hukam Singh her deceased husband and she alongwith her son should have been impleaded as a defendant in the suit. Both the Courts rejected her application as belated and on the ground that the suit land was not the land over which Mst. Sua claim tenancy of her husband. It is against this finding of the two subordinate Courts that the petitioner Mst. Sua has come up in revision before me. It was contended by the counsel for the appellant that since Mst. Sua as the widow of her deceased husband Hukam Singh alongwith her son claim tenancy of the suit land she should have been impleaded as defendant in the suit by the plaintiff from the very beginning. She also claimed possession of the suit land. The counsel for the respondent's reply was that no relief was claimed against Mst. Sua and he denied the tenancy of Hukam Singh over the suit land. I have considered the arguments advanced from both sides and perused the record. The plaintiff respondent has filed this suit for ejectment of Badri and Batu defendants from Khasra No. 57 in village Kudawal. It is not denied that Mst. Sua petitioner is the mother of Badri and Batu, who have pleaded tenancy of the suit land. Mst. Sua has also pleaded tenancy as an heir of Hukamsingh. In view of the fact that Mst. Sua made a specific allegation that she claimed tenancy of the suit land through her husband, it was not proper for the subordinate Court to come to a conclusion that the suit land was not the pokharwala land of which Mst. Sua claimed the tenancy. Mst. Sua has made a specific allegation of the tenancy and possession of the suit land bearing khasra No. 57 which the plaintiff respondent had filed. It was, therefore, imperative on the part of the trial Court to have impleaded Mst. Sua. There could be no bar of limitation in impleading Mst. Sua defendant. Therefore, the two Courts definitely committed an impropriety in not admitting Mst. Sua as the defendant in the suit. There is no doubt that Mst. Sua's application for being impleaded was as such for which some sort of penalty could have been imposed upon and the plaintiff could have been compensated, but there was no justification whatsoever in rejecting her application outright. Before parting with this case I would like to observe that this simple suit for ejectment of the trespasser was filed in the year 1961 and it has not made any progress. In such suits it is imperative for the trial Court to ask the plaintiff to file a copy of the Jamabandi under which he claimed a title to eject the trespasser as a khatedar tenant. Without such document being placed on record which is a prima facie proof of title of the plaintiff suit for ejectment of the trespasser should not have been allowed to proceed. The khasra girdawari is no substitute for the Jamabandi record as the former is not a record of right. I would, therefore, call upon the trial Court to direct the plaintiff respondent to file a copy of the Jamabandi immediately and after Mst. Sua has been impleaded and her written statement obtained the Court should clarify the pleadings and then frame proper issues and after trying those issues, pass appropriate orders after hearing both the parties. The case should be given priority and disposed of as early as possible. The revision petition of the petitioner is therefore accepted. The order of the two subordinate Courts is set aside and the case is remanded back to the trial court for impleading the petitioner Mst. Sua and call upon her to file a written statement together with the documents on which she relies and to proceed with the case in accordance with the law and procedure. The trial Court should however while impleading Mst. Sua and accepting her written statement should award proper costs to the plaintiff respondents for this belated application of her being impleaded. .;