1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6399/2010 Bansilal & Ors. Vs. Jagdish and Ors. Date of Order :: 21.07.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. J.K. Kaushik, for the petitioner/s. ... Seeking khatedari rights relating to land in question, a revenue suit was preferred by the petitioners in the year 1982 before the competent revenue court wherein a counter claim was filed by the respondents. The respondents by the counter claim pressed for their khatedari rights on basis of adverse possession. The suit came to be rejected vide the judgment and decree dated 30.3.1996 and the appeal giving challenge to that also came to be rejected by the Revenue Appellate Authority on 26.4.2000. A second appeal preferred before the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer giving challenge to the judgment and decree passed by the revenue appellate court, Jodhpur affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court also came to be dismissed by the judgment dated 27.6.2000. Learned Board of Revenue while rejecting the second appeal held that both the subordinate courts have held concurrently that the plaintiff could not prove his tenancy after promulgation of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, and as such, no error is committed by the trial court and the first appellate court. After 2 dismissal of second appeal a review petition was filed and that came to be rejected on 11.8.2009. The instant petition for writ is preferred to challenge all the judgments and orders aforesaid. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that all the parties to the suit are having a common ancestor viz. Hardatji. Hardatji had three sons viz. Choloji, Daulatramji and Dhanaji. Dhanaji died issue-less, however, Choloji had two sons viz. Charmiji and Trilokji whereas Daulatramji had three sons viz. Ghasiram, Kashiram and Kishna. In next generation Trilokji had two sons viz. Chogji and Gulji out of whom Gulji remained issue-less and Chogji had two sons viz. Ramlal and Jaidev and present respondents-defendants are sons of Ramlal whereas the petitioners are descendants of Kashiram, who had three sons viz. Shivji, Banji and Udoji. Shivji and Udoji were issue-less and Banji had one son viz. Motiram. Motiram had three sons viz. Maniklal, Ramvilas and Banshilal. Banshilal is the present petitioner No.1, whereas the petitioners No.2, 3, 4 and 5 are sons of Maniklal and petitioner No.6 is son of Ram Vilas. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the courts below failed to appreciate the admitted position regarding family pedigree of Hardatji, and the fact that the petitioners are having equal right as availed by the respondents in the land in question. 3 On examination of the orders passed by the courts below I do not find any merit in the argument advanced. Learned trial court after considering the entire evidence available on record reached at the conclusion that the petitioners are having possession on the land in dispute from last more than 45 years and mutation was made in their favour much back in the year 1962. The plaintiffs are residing in Maharashtra and involved with their own business. The courts below in such circumstances extended the benefit of adverse possession in favour of the respondents-defendants. The finding given by the courts below is based on sound appreciation of evidence and that remained undisturbed before three courts, and as such, same does not require any interference of this Court while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Jgoyal '