Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Babu Singh vs Board Of Revenue Ajmer & Ors on 7 April, 2017
Author: Arun Bhansali
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13270 / 2015
Babu Singh son of Shri Nathu Singh, aged about 60 years, by
caste Rawna Rajput, resident of Ahore, Tehsil Ahore, District
Jalore.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Board Of Revenue, Ajmer.
2. The Revenue Appellate Authority, Pali.
3. The Assistant Collector (S.D.O.), Ahore, District Jalore.
4. The State of Rajasthan through the Tehsildar, Ahore, District
Jalore.
5. Tej Singh son of Shri Nathu Singh, by caste Rawna Rajput,
resident of Ahore, Tehsil Ahore, District Jalore.
----Plaintiff
6. Babu Singh son of Shri Dharm Singh, by caste Rawna Rajput,
resident of Ahore, Tehsil Ahore, District Jalore.
7. Suraj Singh son of Shri Dharam Singh, by caste Rawna
Rajput, resident of Ahore, Tehsil Ahore, District Jalore.
8. Chattar Singh son of Shri Dharm Singh, by caste Rawna
Rajput, resident of Ahore, Tehsil Ahore, District Jalore.
----(Defendants-Proforma Respondent)
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Mehta.
For Respondent(s) :
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order 07/04/2017 This writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 24.7.2015 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer ('the Board'), whereby the Board has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No.5 and has held that the respondent No.5 would be entitled to 2/3rd share in the suit property.
(2 of 3) [CW-13270/2015] The suit for partition was filed by the respondent No.5, wherein a defence was taken by the petitioner that the respondent No.5 had gone in adoption and therefore, he had no right in the suit property. The SDO by its judgment dated 31.7.2009, held that the fact of adoption was not proved and consequently decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff was entitled to half share in the suit property.
Feeling aggrieved, the respondent No.5 - Tej Singh filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority ('RAA'), the RAA upheld the order passed by the SDO and dismissed the appeal filed by the respondent No.5.
On the second appeal filed by the respondent No.5, the judgment passed by the SDO as upheld by the RAA was modified and it was held that the respondent No.5 was entitled to 2/3rd share in the suit property.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the authorities below were not justified in coming to the conclusion that the respondent No.5 - Tej Singh had not gone in adoption.
Reliance was placed on statement of Smt. Methi Bai, mother of respondent No.5 in support of the said contention.
From perusal of the record, it is clear that the SDO recorded a finding that the plea raised by the petitioner regarding Tej Singh having gone in adoption was not established. Against the said finding, the petitioner did not file appeal and therefore, the said finding become final.
(3 of 3) [CW-13270/2015] Even in the appeal filed by Tej Singh before the RAA as well as Board, no cross objections were filed and therefore, now in the present writ petition, the plea sought to be raised regarding the fact of adoption of Tej Singh is not open to be agitated.
In view thereof, the judgment passed by the Board and / or other two authorities does not call for any interference. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI)J. Rm/79