- (1.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find no merit in the appeal.
(2.) As per the plaint instituted by respondent No. 3 before the court of SDM the suit land was under the khatedari of the father of respondent No.3 prior to 1955. On the death of his father on 02/03/1965, the khatedari was entered in the revenue record in his name. But since he was a minor it was recorded that the mother would be the guardian. Because he was a minor he could not till the land and his mother allowed the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants to till the same as a share cropper. Pleading that on attaining the majority he wanted to till the land himself, possession was claimed. In the written-statement filed, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, in loss and laconic pleadings, pleaded that he was inducted as a sub-tenant of the khatedar prior to promulgation of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. Though not expressly pleaded in the written-statement, the effect of the pleadings obviously would be that being a tenant prior to 1955, the khatedari rights would be his.
(3.) At the trial the plaintiff proved the Jamabandi Ex.P.1, P.2 and P.3 as also the mutation entry Ex.P.4. The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants proved khasra entries Exhibits P.1, P.2, P.3, P.4 and P.5.;