CHANDER RAJ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by Additional District Judge, No. 2, Jodhpur confirming the decree passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Jodhpur and dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed present suit against the defendants for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,300/ -. The plaintiff took on lease Kharda mine and Bambolai mine in the Mining department on January 14, 1966 and paid a sum of Rs. 500/ - as security for each mine totaling to Rs. 1,000/ - and further paid a sum of Rs. 493.60 and Rs. 493.56 as dead -rent for both the mines. The plaintiff has alleged that when he started the work at the mines, the Revenue officers restrained him al the Kharda mine because it involved risk and damage to the Kharda Bandh and employees of Jodhpur His Highness restrained the plaintiff from working on the mines as the land belonged to His Highness being his personal property. The plaintiff met the Collector and Tehsidar who gave him certificate on October 29, 1966 which runs as under:

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has vehemently submitted that the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur seriously erred in not relying on Ex 2, a certificate issued by the Tehsildar on the ground that it was not original but only a carbon copy, and the plaintiff has not proved this carbon copy. I have looked into the original of Ex 2 and I find that Ex.2 is signed by Tehsildar with a seal under his signatures. Though the body of the document seems to be a carbon copy, therefore, I am of the view that learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur clearly erred in not placing reliance on this document Ex.2, therefore, I have myself looked into the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties. Learned Counsel ('or the appellant further pleaded that in view of the fact that he was not allowed to work on Kharda mine and that the land of Bhambolai mine did not belong to the State, but was the personal property of His Highness, Jodhpur and thereafter, the State was not competent to grant any lease and even if the plaintiff had taken out 80 tonnes of stone from Bhambolai mine, the State could not have forfeited the security as well as the dead rent.