- (1.) This second appeal under sec. 224(2) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 has been filed by the plaintiff appellants against the judgment of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur dated the 13th of November, 1963, whereby the order and decree passed by the Assistant Collector, Sikar on 31st of March, 1962 against the plaintiff -appellants were upheld.
(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff -appellants filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of their khatedari lands bearing khata No. 73 and khasra Nos. 5.2 26,22 and 44, measuring 11 bighas 9 biswas, 13 bighas 5 biswas, 4 bighas 10 biswas, 23 bighas, 5 biswas and 14 bighas totalling to 66 bighas 5 biswas, situate in village Rajore, against the defendants - respondents, who cultivated the disputed lands as Shikmis. In the plaint it was averred that in 1952, they came to know that the defendants -Shikmis were paying rent directly and, therefore, they approached the Tehsildar Sikar with the request that if any Shikmis deposited rent in respect of the suit lands the same maybe accepted. In 1953, these Shikmis defendants got the suit lands declared in their name by the order of the Anti -Ejectment Officer, and with the promulgation of Rajasthan Tenancy Act in 1955, under sec. 19(a) of the said Act, they became khatedar -tenants. The plaintiffs -appellants contested that the defendants were never conferred any right to cultivate the suit lands in writing and as such they could not be treated as sub -tenants and thus could not be allowed consequential relief. It was prayed that the defendants be ejected from the suit land and the Girdawari entries entered in defendants favour be corrected. The trial court after framing issues, adducing the evidence and deciding the issues, dismissed the suit, treating the defendants -respondents as Khatedar kashtkars by giving the benefit of possession delivered to them by the Anti -Ejectment Officer. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs went in appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority who concurred with the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Hence this second appeal.
(3.) It was contested on behalf of the appellants that the Revenue Appellate Authoritys judgment was no judgment in the eye of law. As the findings of first appellate court were binding on the second appellate court, it was all the more necessary for the court of first appeal to have fully examined, analysed and marshalled the facts and evidence on record. To support this, following authorities were cited : 1. Rodmal vs. Mthuralal (1950 RLW 104), 2. Mst. Kamla vs. Badrinarain (1953 RRW 552), 3. Mavasi vs. Balwant (1964 RRD 1939), 4. Sobharaj vs. Maheshnarain (AIR 1948 Oudh 27). ;