CHHITAR Vs. PARSADI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision under sec. 26 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, against the appellate order of the Additional Commissioner. Jaipur dated the 4.11.53, whereby the decisions of the trial court and the first appellate court were set aside and the applicants application for redemption of mortgage over the land in dispute was rejected.

(2.) I have heard the parties and have gone though the record as well. I have no hesitation in observing that there is absolutely no substance in this revision. The mortgage alleged by the applicant finds no mention in the Revenue record. Nor any registered deed in support of the creation of the mortgage has been alleged to exist or proved in the case. On the other hand; the entries in the Gasht Girdawari clearly show the opposite party to be a sub -tenant holding land under the applicant who is recorded as a khatedar of the same.

(3.) AS the lower courts have discussed the provisions of the Karauli State Revenue Code on the subject and have expressed divergent views thereon, it would be proper to examine the carefully here as well. The point was examined by the Board in case No. 27/Sawai Madhopur of Svt. 2010 - -Sanvalia vs. Lallu Singh, (1954 RLW Revenue Supplt. 10) and it was observed that the provisions of the law requiring prior sanction of the Deputy Collector for creation of a mortgage are mandatory. The trial court and the first appellate court appear to have been misled by the use of the word may in Chapter IX of the Code. Rule 21 of this chapter runs as follows: - -