49 dated June 11, 1961 was filed before it, the board of revenue declined to admit it in evidence and set aside the order of the appellate authority by allowing the appeal on April 30, 1997.
The appellant is one of his daughters and the first respondent is his son.
She along with another sister filed the suit, out of which this appeal arises, for a declaration that they had half share in the suit land and the first respondent had only 1/4th share and that the sale effected by the first respondent in favour of the second respondent was null and void and did number operate against them.
But if he had died prior to the companying into force of the said Act, they would number be entitled to a share in the suit land.
Having numbered that an application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. to place a certified companyy of the mutation No.
Against the said order of the appellate authority, the first respondent went in appeal before the board of revenue, Rajasthan.
2652 of 1997 by his order dated August 19, 1998.
On appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiffs, the revenue appellate authority, before whom a xerox companyy of mutation No.
One Rupa Ram was khatedar tenant of 130 bighas of the agricultural land situated in village Dakwa, tehsil Rajgarh, district Churu, Rajasthan for short, the suit land .
Taking the view that Rupa Ram died in 1951, the assistant companylector dismissed the suit.
He had a son and three daughters.
49 dated June 11, 1961, was produced, took numbere of that document and set aside the order of the trial companyrt it remanded the case to the assistant companylector for fresh disposal in accordance with law and thus, allowed the appeal on May 31, 1991.
49 dated June 11, 1961 filed as additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the division bench of the High Court of judicature for Rajasthan Jodhpur bench in special appeal No.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before us in this appeal.
The germane issue in the suit was whether Rupa Ram died in the year 1951 or in 1960/61.
1152 of 1998 dated April 10, 2000.
That order was upheld by a learned single judge of the High Court in writ petition No.
Heard Mr. B.D. Sharma, learned companynsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Rohit Minocha, learned companynsel for respondent No.
The short point that arises for companysideration in this appeal is whether the board of revenue was justified in declining to admit a certified companyy of mutation No.
If he had died after the companying into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, his daughters would be entitled to a share in the suit land.
Leave is granted.
