MOHAN RAWAL Vs. TEHSILDAR AMET

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are directed against the order of the Addl. Collector, Udaipur dated 18-91969 passed in the matter of the escheat occasioned by the demise of one Deva Rawal, Sthandhari of Asan Muafi, Tehsil Amet. The facts and circumstances as well as the impugned order being the same, both these appeals, are being disposed of by one and the same order.

(2.) THE facts are that the Tehsildar, Amet initiated proceedings under the Escheats Act and reported to the Collector attaching the entire property of the deceased Deva Rawal. THE Collector found that the proceedings initiated by the Tehsildar were not complete in all respects under the law and the case was remanded to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Rajsamand for inquiry and report on 23 6-1968 THE S. D. O. reported back. He found that Deva Rawal had taken in adoption Mohan Nath as his successor as the Sthandhari of Asan and a registered will was executed on 20-12-1963 in Mohan Rawal's favour. Mohan Rawal was a minor at that time and his mother Dakhi Bai, as his natural guardian, engaged one Ogadmal for the management of the property Since Mohan Rawal had been adopted as the 'chela' the deceased Deva Rawal could not be held having died without an heir. He also recommended for the estate being managed by the Court of wards since Deva Rawal had demised leaving behind debts amounting to Rs. 3400/- and Mohan Rawal was a minor. Objections were invited by the Additional Collector and the same were filed by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, appellant and Mohan Rawal; Mangilal Bhoor Rawal and Narain Rawal, all respondents No. 1 to 4, in appeal No. 18/1969. All their objections have been briefly stated in the impugned order. THE Additional Collector after hearing the objections, held that no question of escheat was involved as deceased Deva Rawal had appointed Mohan Rawal respon-dent-1. as his Chela during his life time by a registered deed and the properties attached by the Tehsildar were released and ordered to be handed over to Mohan Rawal. Referring to the objection taken on behalf of the Devasthan Department that Mohan Rawal could not be treated as the 'ayes' or 'sthandhari' without the sanction of the State Government, he held that this had no connection-what-so-ever with the proceedings under the Escheats Act and the Department should initiate separate proceedings for the appointment of the 'ayes'. But to ensure proper 'sewa-Pooja' of the Asan, it was ordered that the property should remain in the custody of the natural guardian of the minor Mohan Rawal i. e. his mother who should prefer a bond and proper surety to the effect that in the event of Mohan Rawal being not accepted and appointed as the 'ayes' by the State Government, the properties released from attachment would be redelivered to the State Government. Aggrieved by this order the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department has come in appeal before us.