- (1.) THIS is a revision against an appellate order of the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur, dated 6. 8. 1956, upholding the decision of the S. D. O. , Tijara (Alwar District) in a case which commenced on 2. 11. 1953, under sec. 7 of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949, and was decided on 14. 12. 1955 presumably under sec. 186 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, which came into force on 15. 10. 1955.
(2.) WE have beard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have examined the record as well. The applicant Puranmal claimed re-instatement before the trial court with the allegations that in Svt. 2009 he and Ramjilal opposite party were admitted as tenants of the land in dispute by the owner Mst. Kasturi; that in Svt. 2010 he (the applicant) sowed the Kharif harvest ; and that on 20. 10. 1953 the opposite party Ramjilal deliberately and wrongfully dispossessed him from the land by cutting the Kharif produce himself and later on not permitting him to participate in the Rabi harvest. Ramjilal resisted the claim and pleaded that he himself was admitted as a tenant of the land by Mst. Kasturi, that in Svt. 2009 he allowed Puranmal to share in cultivation, that towards the close of Svt. 2009 after Mst. Kasturi's death Puranmal fearing opposition from the villagers refused to have anything to do with the land, that thereafter Ramjilal alone faced the opposition of the villagers wherein he received multiple injuries and had to resort to criminal litigation to re-establish his possession over the land, and that he never prevented or dispossessed Puranmal from the land as Puranmal himself voluntarily ceased to do anything with it. After recording the evidence of the parties both the lower courts came to the conclusion that Puranmal failed to establish bis admission as a tenant to the land in dispute, that on the contrary Ramjilal was admitted as a tenant by Mst. Kasturi, and that Ramjilal took Puranmal in Svt. 2009 as a sharer in cultivation a status which was voluntarily given up by Puranmal in that very year. As a result of these findings the trial court rejected Puranmal's request for re-instatement and the first appellate court endorsed the findings of the trial court. It has been argued before us on behalf of the appellant that both the lower courts were not justified in holding that Puranmal had failed to establish his admission as tenant by Mst. Kasturi. It was replied on behalf of the opposite party that this being a finding on a question of fact, should not he interfered with in this revision. A I. R. 1949 P. C. 156, was relied on in this connection. The law on the point has, however, been exhaustively discussed by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan in Bhagirath vs. Samdu Khan (1952 I. L. R. 2 Raj. 1012 ). The scope and extent of revisional jurisdiction under sec. 115, C. P. C. has been laid down there. It is difficult to give an exhaustive list of cases where the court can be said to have acted illegally or with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction. But for practical purposes, in cases where the procedure provided by law has not been followed, or relevant provisions of an enactment are completely overlooked, or the authority of the High Court as to what is the law is ignored, or the court invents a fanciful rule and acts on its basis, or acts in defiance of the admitted facts of the case, or decides it against fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or without applying its mind to the real point involved in the case, or misapprehends the nature of the enquiry before it altogether, it can be said to be acting illegally or with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction, if such acting has a material effect on the result of the proceeding. We have, therefore, to see whether in this case the lower appellate court can be said to have acted illegally or with material irregularity in deciding the appeal before it. The most important point to be determined in the case is as to whether the applicant Puranmal holds the status of a tenant or not. The entry in the Gasht Girdawari Svt. 2009 is not very helpful in the case. It simply runs as below - "ramjilal Hissa Nisf Fatiyabadi Nisf, Minjumla Kasturi" Fatiyab di is alleged to be an alias of the applicant Puranmal. There is no entry about the rent in this Gasht Girdawari nor any written lease or Patta has been produced in the case. The question has, therefore, to be determined with a reference to the oral evidence alone. The applicant alleged in his statement recorded in the trial court that he alone was admitted as a tenant by Mst. Kasturi and that some time after his admission he took Ramjilal as his partner in cultivation. The evidence led by Puranmal, however on the point is markedly contradictory to his own statement. Raghubar Dayal a brother of Puranmal and son-in-law of Mst. Kasturi has stated that he was managing the land on behalf of Mst Kasturi and that he admitted both Ramjilal and Puranmal as tenants of the land in dispute. There is vet another witness Kanhaiyalal in the employ of Puranmal and he stated that Mst. Kasturi gave this land first to Raghubar Dayal and it was Raghubar Dayal who gave the land to Ramjilal. He also stated clearly that Ramjilal admitted Puranmal as his sharer in cultivation. This is exactly what has been stated by Ramjilal in his statement. Ramjilal's version finds complete corroboration from the statement of Puranmal's witness Kanhaiyalal. There can be no reason for disbelieving Ramjilal's version. The findings of the lower court, therefore, that it was Ramjilal who was admitted as a tenant of the land in dispute and that it was Ramjilal who allowed Puranmal to share in cultivation are perfectly justifiable on record and can be regarded neither absurd nor perverse. In fact these are the only findings that can be possible in the face of this evidence. Puranmal having been proved to be a mere sharer in cultivation and not a tenant or a sub-tenant as defined in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act he cannot be allowed to avail of the remedies available to a tenant for wrongful ejectment under sec. 186 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. If any authority be needed for this view it will be found in two decisions of the High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan. Sarwan vs. Board of Revenue and Gutab Singh vs. Mangya, writ petitions Nos. H of 1953 and 40 of 1953 decided on 10th October, 1955 and 24th July, 1566 respectively. For these reasons we are of the opinion that the courts came to a correct conclusion in the case. There is no force in this revision which is hereby rejected. .;