1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2812/2003 Shanker Lal vs Kishan Lal & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : - 26.7.2007 HON'BLE MR.PRAKASH TATIA,J. Mr.Sanjay Mathur,for the petitioner. Mr.JK Bhaiya, for the respondent. Mr.SN Tiwari, Dy. GA for the State. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. It appears that land was sold by one Motilal by registered sale deed dated 12.9.1962 and the possession of the same was handed over to the purchasers. In the year 1983, Motilal's sons again sold some land by registered sale deed dated 28th May, 1983. In that situation, the first purchaser filed the suit for declaration in the trial court i.e., in the court of Asstt. Collector, Nathdawara, Rajsamand. The said suit of respondents was dismissed by the learned Asstt. Collector, Nathdawara vide judgment dated 26th Dec., 2001, copy of which has been placed on record as Annex.1. An appeal was preferred by the plaintiffs before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur, who allowed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 14th Dec., 2002 and held that in view of the sale by Motilal in favour of plaintiffs for the land in question, the purchasers became Khatedar tenants of the said agricultural land. Therefore, the first 2 appellate court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and directed to make entires the names of the plaintiffs in place of seller Motilal according to his share in the entire holding as there was some other co-sharers also apart from the plaintiffs. The defendants preferred second appeal before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer. The Board of Revenue, Ajmer dismissed the appeal at admission stage but after giving reasons in detail by judgment and decree dated 21st March, 2003. The defendants, therefore, have preferred this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the land sold by Motilal was ancestral land and he could have sold the land to the extent of his own share and could not have sold the share of the plaintiffs who are sons of the seller Motilal. It is also submitted that the purchasers under the sale deed of the year 1962 did not get their name entered in the revenue record. It is also submitted that original sale deed was not produced by the plaintiffs. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the reasons given in the impugned judgments. So far as the judgment of the trial court dated 26th Dec., 2001 written in the order sheet in one page is no judgment in the eye of law. The appellate court had full material before the appellate court and on the basis of complete appreciation of evidence, the first appellate court held that Motilal sold the property to the plaintiffs by registered sale deed in the year 1962. The first appellate court considered the evidence in detail and the matter was examined by 3 the revenue board and the revenue board rightly held that once the property sold then any other purchaser from the vendor who sold the property cannot acquire any right, title or interest in the property. It appears that the petitioners-defendants failed to disclose how the transaction affected by their own father was not noticed by them for such long period of about 11 years. It appears that two courts below very carefully appreciated all the facts and, thereafter, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. I do not find any reason for interference in the impugned judgments and decrees. Hence, the writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-