BHONRI MST Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under sec. 7 of the Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act 1956, which has been wrongly designated as revision, has been filed against the order of the Addl. Collector, Jaipur dated 16. 7. 1960. The circumstances that give rise to this appeal may briefly be stated as below : - On 11. 6. 1959 one Gopal Sharma presented an application before the Additional Collector, Jaipur to the effect that a house situated in Chowkri Purani of Jaipur City bearing Municipal No. 2437/38 S. N. 19 belonged to one Deenanath Tiwari who died without leaving behind any heirs, that two ladies bearing the same name Shrimati Bhonri were in wrongful possession over the house, that the house belonged to the State Government by Escheat and hence it was prayed that the same should be attached and the ladies be restrained from alienating it in any manner. THIS application was forwarded by the Addl. Collector for an enquiry and report under sec. 4 of the Act to the Tehsildar, Jaipur. To appreciate the conduct of the informer Gopal Sharma, who has since died it would be necessary to refer to the proceedings conducted before the Tehsildar. The statements of the informer and his two witnesses were recorded by the Tehsildar on 30. 6. 1959 and thereafter a notification was issued inviting objections. Both the ladies, appellants before us, submitted their objections on 8. 8. 1959. Their counsel desired to cross-examine the informer and his witnesses and hence the case was adjourned to 31. 8. 1959. On this date the counsel for the informer was present but not the informer himself. One Shri Govind Sahai, who is a respondent before us also filed his claims with respect to the house. The case was adjourned to 30. 9. 59 and the counsel for the informer was instructed to produce the informer for cross-examination. The case was thereafter adjourned on 30. 9. 59, 22. 10. 59, 12. 11. 59, 8-12-59, 31-12-59 and 19. 1. 60 but the informer never appeared before the Tehsildar. Eventrually the Tehsildar submitted the papers to the Addl. Collector with the recommendation that as three claimants had appeared on the scene they should be required to have their respec-tive titles declared by a competent civil court. The Addl. Collector issued notices under sec. of the Act on 1. 2. 60. Appearance and obedience to it was put in by both the appellants and the respondent Govind Sahai. The informer d id not appear there and his counsel who could have no validity to act for him after his (Govind Sahai's) death continued to press his views. It was demanded by him that adequate security should be taken from the appellants for proper custody and management of the house. THIS found favour with the learned Addl. Collector who at one time thought fit to record the evidence that may be led by the claimants but eventually on 17. 1. 60 decided that as there were three claimants they should all be instructed to seek adjudication of their respective titles from a competent court. Hence this appeal.

(2.) NOTICES of this appeal were issued to the informer Gopal Sharma and it was reported by the process server that he had died. Thereupon his counsel Shri Vishandayal Nirmal was called to explain as to how he continued to appear on behalf of his deceased client. He has stated before us that he had no knowledge of the death of the client. He expressed regrets for his conduct and in view of it we do not propose to pursue this matter any further.