KISHORI LAL versus BIRDHI LAL & ORS.

Citation: [1976] 3 S.C.R. 588 · Decided: 10-03-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
5 88 
KISHORI LAL 
v. 
BIRDIIl LAL & ORS. 
March 10, 1976 
[A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.] 
(,'onstitution of lndia. Art. 226-Concurrent decisions of Revenue authorlties 
-Apparent error of law-Whether High Court's interference justified. 
RajastT1an Tenancy Act, 1955, S. 5 (44), essential conditions, if satisfied-
Rejection of alternative case under s. 180. 
The appellant brought a suit for possession of land_ against 
re.spondent 
Birdhi Lal, under Ss. 180 and 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. The 
Assistant Collector, Baran, dismissed the suit, but the 
Revenue 
Appellate 
Authority allowed his appeal and held that Birdhl Lal was a trespasser. A 
further appeal by Birdhi Lal was dismissed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan. 
Thereafter, his application made under Art. 226 was allowed by the High Court. 
The High Court held Birdhi Lal to be a tenant within the meaning of s. 5 ( 43), __. 
and not a trespasser as conceived by s. 5 ( 44). On appeal by special leave, the ' 
appellants contended before this Court that the High Court was not justified 
in exercising appellate jurisdiction and interfering with the concurrent opinions 
of the Revenue authorities. It was further contended that even if Birdhi Lal 
was held to be a tenant. he was liable to be ejected, as the original suit had 
been fran1ed alternatively under s. 180 of the Act. 
Disn:1issing the appeal, the court 
HELD: (1) The material on record does not establish that Birdhi Lal took 
or retained possession of the land without authority. The essential conditions 
for holding Birdhi Lal to be a trespasser under s. 5(44) were manifr,stly not 
,,( 
satisfied. 
The High Court was right in rectifying the error of law apparent 
on the face of the record and quashing the judgments of the Appellate Revenue 
Authority and the Board of Revenue. 
[589F-H & 590AJ 
(2) The alternative case under s. 180 required necessary averments and 
r 
proof of facts which were absent in the case. The plea therefore, cannot be ~ 
entertained. 
[590 C-DJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JuRISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1436 of 1975. 
Apprnl by special leave from the Judgment and 
Order dated 
10-3-1975 of the Rajasthan High Court in D. B. Civil Writ Petition 
No. 384 of 1968. 
Ahmed Bux, Beni Madhav Sharma, M/s. V. J. Francis & R. A. 
Gupta, Advocates for the appellants. 
S. M. Jain & Sushi/ Kumar Jain, Advocates for respondent No. 1. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by-
JAsWANT SINGH, J.-This appeal by special leave is directed against 
the judgment dated March 10, 1975 of the High Court of Rajas-
than at Jodhpur passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 384 of 1968. 
/-· 
The facts leading to this appeal are : On July 1, 1961, Kishori 
Lal, the appellant herein, brought a suit in the court of the Assistant 
Collector, Baran, against Birdhi Lal, respondent No. 1, for posses-
sion of land comprised in khasra Nos. 513, 669 and 678 situate in "-
village Balakhera of Anta Tehsil of Kota District under sections 180 
and 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred 
to as the Act). By his judgment dated 
December 24, 
1962, the 
. 
. 
KISHORI LAL v. BIRDHI LAL (Jaswant Singh, J.) 
5 89 
Assistant Collector dismissed the suit. 
The appellant thereup-0n pre-
ferred an appeal to the Revenue Appellate Authority who allowed the 
, same by his judgment dated November 9, 1963, and reversing the 
) 
juc;lgment of the Assistant Collector decreed the suit holding that 
Birdhi Lal was a trespasser. 
Aggrieved by the judgment and decree 
'< 
of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Birdhi Lal took the matter in 
further appeal to the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, but remained un-
successful as the members of the Board affirmed the view taken by 
the Revenue Appellate Authority. 
Dissatisfied with the decisions of 
• 
the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue, Rajas-
than, Birdhi Lal approached the High Conrt of Raiasthan by means of 
a petition under Article 226 of t]le Constitution. 
The High Court 
by its aforesaid judgment and order dated March 10, 1975, allowed 
the petition and held that Birdhi Lal being a tenant within the mean-
ing of section 5 ( 43) of the Act and not a trespasser as conceived by 
section 5 ( 44) of the Act, was not liable to be e},oeted from the 
land. 
Dissatisfied with this judgment, 
Kislhori Lal has come up 
'r- this Court. 
The learned counsel for the appellant has, while supporting the 
appeal, vehemently tried to p
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.