CW 9298/07 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** 1-Civil Writ Petition No.9298/2007 Mool Chand Versus Board of Revenue & Others. 2-Civil Writ Petition No.9299/2007 Mool Chand Versus Board of Revenue & Others. Date of Order ::: 08/05/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Bhanu Pareek, for petitioner Both the petitions since involve identical issue and filed by self-same petitioner against common judgment of Board of Revenue, have been heard together at request of Counsel and are being disposed of by this order. These petitions are directed against order dt.24/03/2000 of Asstt. Collector, Sapotra Camp Nadoti; and common orders dt.09/11/2000 of Revenue Appellate Authority, Sawai Madhopur (Appeals-28/2000 & 30/2000); dt.17/08/06 (Appeal /Decree/318(6229) & 317(6230)/2000/Karauli) and dt.13/04/07 (Review/TA/6647 & 6648/2000/Karauli) of Board of Revenue, Ajmer. Revenue suit U/Ss 88 & 188 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act was filed before Asstt. Collector, Sapotra Camp Nadoti (Karauli) seeking declaration and correction of entries in revenue record in respect of agricultural land bearing Khasra NO. 1553 (New) situated in village CW 9298/07 //2// Bardala Tehsil Nadoti measuring 2.40 hectares & Khasra No.1169 measuring 11 Aer but was dismissed vide order dt.24/03/2000 against which petitioner preferred two appeals before Revenue Appellate Authority, Sawai Madhopur, that too were dismissed vide common order dt.09/11/2000 – against which further second appeals were also dismissed by Board of Revenue vide order dt.17/08/06. It appears that at the stage of second appeal, objection was raised by petitioner that as per Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and old Hindu law was applicable at relevant point of time and accordingly, a widow has no right to inherit any property; as such very entries made in the name of Mst. Dakha widow of Mishrilal in Samvat year 2020 were contrary to relevant provisions. However, learned Board of Revenue has not considered to examine aforesaid objection on the premise that no such issue was ever raised at the stage of suit or first appeal; as such finally observed that in absence of any issue framed and finding being arrived at, such an objection can not be considered at the stage of 2nd appeal. Review preferred was also rejected after holding that what has been pleaded by petitioner is not covered U/O 47, R.1, CPC which CW 9298/07 //3// may call for interference. Having have considered and examined material on record, this Court does not any manifest error of law which may call for interference in judgments impugned. Consequently, writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.3/9298CW07(2)May08Ds.doc