Malpura Distt. Tonk v. All are R/o Ajmeri Tehsil Malpura Distt. Tonk

: Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya Mr. Neeraj Batra, GC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL [2025:RJ-JP:5193] (2 of 4) [CW-3870/2002] 05/02/2025 Order This writ petition assails the legality and validity of the judgement dated 14.03.2002 passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer (for brevity, ‘Board of Revenue’) whereby, while allowing the appeal no.71/97 preferred by the respondent no.2 to 10/appellants/plaintiffs (for brevity, ‘plaintiffs’), the judgement and decree dated 10.04.1997 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Tonk in appeal no.34/97 have been quashed and set aside and the judgement and decree dated 24.02.1996 passed by the Court of Assistant Collector First, Tonk decreeing the suit no.1014/73, have been restored. The relevant facts in brief are that predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration, partition and permanent injunction against the petitioner/defendant no.1 (for brevity, ‘defendant no.1’) and the proforma respondent no.12/defendant no.2 (for brevity, ‘defendant no.2’) with the averments that they are sons and daughter of Shri Birdhi Chand and after his death, they acquired 1/3rd share each in the subject agricultural land; but, the defendants got mutation of the entire subject land entered in their name to the exclusion of his rights. Therefore, the decree, as aforesaid, was prayed for. The defendant no.1 in its written statement submitted that since, the plaintiff had gone in adoption to Shri Kesarlal, he has no right in the subject agricultural land. The learned trial Court decreed the suit vide its judgement dated 24.02.1996 recording a categorical finding that the defendant no.1 has failed to substantiate his plea that the plaintiff had gone in adoption to Shri Kesarlal. The first appeal preferred [2025:RJ-JP:5193] (3 of 4) [CW-3870/2002] thereagainst by the defendant no.1 came to be allowed by the Revenue Appellate Authority by judgement and decree dated

10.04.1997 while reversing the finding qua issue no.4. The second appeal preferred by the plaintiffs has been allowed by the Board of Revenue by judgement and decree dated 14.03.2002, impugned herein. Assailing the impugned judgement and decree, the only contention advanced by learned counsel for the defendant no.1 is that the Board of Revenue did not appreciate that from the evidence on record, it was established that the plaintiff had gone in adoption to Shri Kesarlal and had no right in the properties left behind by his biological father. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the judgement and decree impugned dated

14.03.2002 be quashed and set aside and the suit be dismissed. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiffs, supporting the findings recorded by the Board of Revenue, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Learned State Counsel submits that it is a formal party. Heard. Considered. Indisputably, the plaintiff-Ladu Lal was biological son of deceased Birdhi Chand and therefore, was entitled for share in the subject agricultural land left behind by him alongwith the defendants no.1 and 2. The defendant no.1 disputed and denied his right claiming his adoption by Shri Kesar Lal. After appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has recorded a categorical finding that the defendant no.1 could not establish his plea that the plaintiff had gone in adoption. The findings were unsettled by the Revenue [2025:RJ-JP:5193] (4 of 4) [CW-3870/2002] Appellate Authority relying upon a so called affidavit of Shri Kesarlal which, as per the findings recorded by the Board of Revenue, was not proved in accordance with law. It has also been held by the Board of Revenue, while allowing the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs, that in all the documents submitted by the plaintiff; such as, the gift deed dated 27.11.1964 as well as the power of attorney (Ex. A5), both executed by Shri Kesarlal, the voter list for the years 1971 and 1974, the mutation entry dated

03.03.1965 (Ex. A3) and copies of the various criminal and civil litigation between the parties, the plaintiff was shown as son of Shri Birdhi Chand and not of Shri Kesarlal. Had the plaintiff been adopted by Shri Kesarlal, as claimed by the defendant no.1, there was no occasion for showing his father’s name that of his biological father in these documents including the documents executed by Shri Kesarlal himself. Learned counsel for the defendant no.1 has not been able to demonstrate these factual findings recorded by the Board of Revenue based on appreciation of the material on record to be suffering from any perversity or illegality so as to warrant interference by this Court under its writ jurisdiction. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. PRAGATI/22 (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J