JHAVERI,J. - (1.) By way of this special appeal, the appellant originally herein defendant before the learned Single Judge has challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition, setting aside the order passed by the Board of Revenue which has confirmed the order of the appellate authority and reversed the finding given by the trial court.
(2.) The present appellant has filed a civil suit before the competent authority seeking relief that the agreement which was entered between the appellant-plaintiff with the original owner on 07.12.1974 and pursuant to which right has been accrued in favour of the appellant was required to be granted and the Board of Revenue has rightly dismissed the second appeal preferred by the respondent herein petitioner before the learned Single Judge and has rightly allowed the appeal by the competent appellate authority. The facts of the case are as under: "The facts on which the present dispute is centered are that respondent No.1 Mohanlal preferred a suit before the court of Sub Divisional Officer, Bali under Section 41 and 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 for transfer of khatedari rights and for ejectment of trespasser. The case of the plaintiff, as averred in the plaint, was that through a registered sale deed dated 7.12.1974 he purchased an agricultural land bearing khasra No.21 in village Basada, Tehsil Desuri measuring 10 Bighas from Bhagaram (respondent No.2) and possession of the land was also acquired by him immediately. He remained with possession of the land for continuous three years but Shri Bhagaram did not proceeded for getting the mutation transferred in revenue records. In the year 1978 he was dispossessed by the defendants from the land in question, therefore, he sought a decree for ejectment and to transfer khatedari rights in his favour. The defendant petitioners submitted a written statement stating therein that through the registered sale deed dated 8.1.1979 the land in question was sold to defendant Chhogaram by Shri Bhagaram and since then they are in peaceful possession of the land. The khatedari rights too were transferred in name of Chhogaram and he paid all revenue. The parcha lagaan was also issued in the name of Chhogaram in settlement proceedings. The defendant petitioners denied the averments made in the plaint with regard to plaintiffs possession over the land in question. On basis of pleadings the trial court framed four issues as follows:- JUDGEMENT_107_LAWS(RAJ)3_2017.jpg Shri Mohanlal (plaintiff), Shri Bhagaram and Dhanraj were produced in witness box in favour of the plaintiff and their statements were recorded. On behalf of defendants statements of M/s Balchand, Mularam and Jetharam were recorded. Devaram and Banshilal were produced as witness in rebuttal by the plaintiff. The trial court while deciding the issue No.1 against the plaintiff held that the sale said to be made in favour of the plaintiff through the sale deed dated 7.12.1974 is void ab-initio being in violation of provisions of section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1908'). The trial court held that the sale deed was executed on 15.7.1974 but was presented and registered on 7.12.1974 i.e. after a period of more than four months, as such the registering authority in light of provisions of Section 23 of the Act of 1908 was lacking jurisdiction to register the document presented before it after a period of four months from the date of its execution. Beside the above, the trial court has also not found the sale of the land to plaintiff bona fide in view of the statement given by Bhagaram (PW-2) who stated that from childhood he was in service of plaintiff Mohanlal at Mumbai, all expenses occurred in his marriage were borne by the plaintiff and then he sold the land to the plaintiff. The trial court also held that possession of the land was never with the plaintiff petitioners. The issue No.2 and 3 were also decided against the plaintiff respondent in view of the fact that plaintiff respondent failed to prove issue No.1. The issue No.4 was decided by the trial court in favour of defendant petitioners. Accordingly the suit was dismissed by the judgment dated 2.4.1989. The plaintiff respondent being aggrieved by judgment dated 2.4.1989 passed by the trial court preferred an appeal under Section 223 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Pali. The Revenue Appellate Authority by its judgment dated 10.5.1994 accepted the appeal and set aside the judgment dated 2.4.1989 accepted the appeal and set aside the judgment dated 2.4.1989. The revenue Appellate Authority decreed the suit preferred by the plaintiff by declaring him as khatedar of the land in question and by making an order to dispossess the defendant petitioners from possession of the land in question. The Revenue Appellate Authority while setting aside the order passed by the trial court held that transfer made under the sale deed dated 07.12.1974 could not be treated as a paper transfer and, therefore, all the rights vested with Bhagaram stood transferred to the plaintiffs. The appellate court while giving such finding did not consider the effect and impact of the provisions of Section 23 of the Act of 1908 on count of which trial court held the sale under the deed dated 07.12.1974 void ab-initio.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has merely contended that the revenue court has no jurisdiction to declare that the document is void for which he relied upon observations which is made by the competent authority to the JUDGEMENT_107_LAWS(RAJ)3_20171.jpg and contended that the learned Single Judge while considering the case of the respondent has wrongly misconstrued the provisions of Section 23.;