IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH [1] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3426/2010 Mst. Dankha & Ors. Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors. [2] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3427/2010 Mst. Dankha & Ors. Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 15/03/2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Pawan Pareek, for petitioner ***
Instant petitions have been filed assailing order dt.18th December, 2009 passed by Board of Revenue, Ajmer and all the three courts have recorded a finding of fact against the petitioner in regard to Khasra No.223 which, as alleged, claimed by petitioner of her own and suit filed for correction of entries was rejected.
It appears from the record that petitioner filed a suit for correction of entries in regard to Khasra No.223. At the same time, respondent Nos.5 to 9 filed suit for partition, declaration & injunction for the property in question. Both the suits were consolidated and issue arises from both the suits were framed by learned trial Judge and so far as issue no.4 is concerned, it was in regard to petitioner’s suit for correction of entries of Khasra No.223. Learned trial Judge after taking note of the material on record observed that Khasra No.223 measuring 1.97 hectares in Gram Molvi Nagar was in the khatedari of Smt. Kali W/o Late Shri Raghunath and in this regard Jamabandi of 2046-2049 and finding was recorded that this being an ancestral property, is entitled to be partitioned among its share-holders. The said finding was affirmed by the Revenue Appellate Authority holding that as per revenue records Khasra No.223 measuring 1.97 hectares belong to Smt. Kali W/o Late Shri Raghunath and this being an ancestral property to be equally divided among share holders and also affirmed by Board of Revenue vide order dt.18th December, 2009.
Counsel for petitioner submits that either learned trial Judge nor the Revenue Appellate Authority or Board of Revenue has examined the issue which arose from the suit preferred by petitioner and in fact what was urged by her has not been examined by either of the courts while passing order impugned;l thus the finding recorded is perverse & deserves to be set aside.
In opinion of this Court, submission made by Counsel is without substance for the reason that not even the learned trial Court examined the issue no.4 which was in regard to Khasra No.223 arise from the suit filed by the petitioner and finally recorded a finding based on revenue records affirmed by both the two courts and being finding of fact, it is not available for this Court to re-appreciate and examine as a court of appeal. No contrary material has been placed on record in regard to finding of fact based on revenue records recorded by learned trial Judge for appreciation of this Court.
Taking note thereof, this Court does not find any manifest error being committed by the courts below which may require interference.
Accordingly, the petition is without substance and is hereby rejected.
[AJAY RASTOGI], J.
FRBOHRA3426CW2010 15-03.doc