PEERDAN SINGH Vs. TH PIRTHI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is one of the few unfortunate cases which was instituted on 27. 3. 1939 but could not be finally disposed of for one reason or the other. The brief facts are as follows: -

(2.) THE Jagirdar of Thikana Bisalpur who is respondent before us in this second appeal filed a suit against the appellants in the court of the Assistant Revenue Officer Bali with the allegations that the suit-land which was once held by one Sadul Singh in Chhutbhai Bunt of the Thikana reverted to the Thikana by escheat on account of the heirless death of the said Chhutbhai, by an order of the then Chief Court of the Jodhpur State dated 2. 3. 1914 and put in possession of the Thikana some time on or about 27. 8. 1917. THE Thikana had ever since remained in possession of the said land. In Svt. 1989 Jawahar Singh the father of the present appellants Peerdan Singh, Mangal Singh, Shambhu Singh and Hira Singh, was given this land by the Thikana with the stipulation that he would construct a well for supplying drinking water to the cattle of the village and if any portion of this land were to be cultivated, the Thikana would be entitled to recover rent according to the prevailing practice from the said Jawahar Singh. This well was constructed and it was named as Shiv Sagar. THE land was cultivated in Svt. 1992 and on demand no rent was paid to the Thikana. A suit was accordingly filed for recovery of arrears of rent at the rate of one fifth of the produce worth Rs. 222/-and it was also prayed that the appellant-defendant be ejected from the land. THE appellant-defedants denied the terms on which the land was given to them and claimed that the land in question belonged to them in their own rights as sub-grantee of the Thikana over which they had constructed a well and cultivated the Jao and appropriated the profits to themselves. As regards the decision of the Chief Court of the former Jodhpur State, it was pointed out that it did not concern the land in dispute. THE trial court struck four issues which for purposes of further discussion of the points involved in this appeal may with advantage be translated as below : - Issue No. 1 : - Whether the defendants constructed a well (Shiv Sagar) in Svt. 1989 in the land belonging to the plaintiff by his permission on the condition that it will be used for drinking purposes by the village cattle and in the event of cultivation of the land under which rent shall be paid according to the custom prevailing in the village. Issue No. 2 : - Whether the defendants had been cultivating the land since 1992 and whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 222/- for the period of four years. Issue No. 3 : - Whether in the event of the defendants' refusal the pay the arrears of rent, the plaintiff was entitled to eject the defendants and recover possession over the well known as Shiv Sagar. Issue No. 4 : - To what relief the plaintiff was entitled. THE oral and documentary evidence of the parties was recorded by the trial court. It will be unnecessary to state here the dilatory tactics-adopted by the both parties which kept this case pending all along. When the evidence of the parties had been almost completed, an application was put up on 15. 12. 56 on behalf of the defendant-appellants in which they stated that as the Thikana has since been resumed under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, the plaintiff had no locus-standi to prosecute the present suit in terms of section 22 of the Act and that the right, title and interest of the parties could now be examined only by the Jagir Commissioner according to the provisions of section 47 of the Act. It was also pleaded that no revenue court was competent with the the trial of the suit as it was so barred. Arguments were heard on this application and the trial court observed that as one of the main questions to be decided in the suit, was whether the well Shiv Sagar stood resumed to the Government or not, provisions of section 46 of the Act were attracted and the Jagir Commissioner alone was competent to try and dispose of the dispute.