toto togel 4d situs toto togel situs togel slot deposit pulsa slot gacor 4d data keluaran hk

Vidhyadhar Sunda vs. State & Ors.

34.00 3.40

Guaranteed Safe Checkout
Spread the knowledge

Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955–Sec. 42(b)–Reference–Allowed by BOR on the ground that the land was belonging to the person of SC–Plea of petitioner that earlier he filed the suit for declaration, perpetual injunction and correction of entries impleading the deceased N, who was the member of Scheduled Tribe–Suit was decreed in his favour and appeal thereagainst was dismissed by RAA–Further, the second appeal was also dismissed by BOR as withdrawn–Questions has arisen in this writ petition as under–
(i) Whether the application u/s. 232 filed by respondents, on which the reference was made, was barred by limitation ?
(ii) What should be the effect of decree obtained by petitioner in earlier suit in the reference proceedings ? Held,
(i) Even the application u/s. 232 was filed by respondents T, M & G, however, this fact cannot invalidiate the reference because the application for reference was filed by Tehsildar himself.
(ii) Even the limitation is accepted 30 years, in the instant case, reference was filed much before and it was in limitation.
(iii) In the earlier suit filed by petitioner, decree was obtained by committing fraud and undue influence.
(iv) It cannot be said that the decree passed in earlier suit was merged with the judgment of RAA because the RAA dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation and second appeal was dismissed by BOR as withdrawn.