SHIVDAN MAL Vs. LAXMI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision which has wrongly been described as an appeal, arises out of a Patta case relating to the city of Jodhpur. The circumstances that give rise to this revision may briefly be summarised thus - Mst. Gulab Kanwar widow of Harkishan applied for grant of a Patta on 22. 4. 41 before the Patta Officer in respect of three pieces of land which are marked in red ink with numbers (1), (2) and (3) on the site plan which is to be found at page 17 of file No. 1824, Misalband Register No. 495/40-41 instituted on 15. 5. 41. The Patta Officer after enquiry came to the conclusion on 30. 10. 41, that the applicant's possession over area No. 1 was proved and she may be granted a Patta for the same. As regards the other two areas - 2 and 3 - he was of the opinion that the applicant should first obtain a 'no objection certificate'. When he case went up before the City Kotwal who was competent to hear appeals in Patta cases according to the then set up of the former Jodhpur State, he remanded it for further evidence on 22. 10. 42. The Patta Officer as a result of further enquiry changed his previous opinion and came to the conclusion that possession of the applicant over all the areas did not stand proved and they should be treated as lawaldi. The City Kotwal again did not accept this opinion and remanded the case for further evidence. It was as this stage that Jethmal, who has since died and is represented by his sons Shivdan Mal and Hoshiarmal, applicants before us, appeared on the scene, and applied for grants of Patta in respect of areas marked Nos. 2 and 3 in the plan. As far area No. 1, it is alleged that Jethmal dispossessed wrongfully Mst. Gulab Kanwar and took possession of the ora standing on the land and put his lock over it in July, 1946. Since then it appears that Jethmal started lying claims of possession over area No 1 as well. The Patta Officer proposed on 10. 3. 47 that as far as area No. 1 was concerned Mst. Gulab Kanwar could not be granted Patta as long as she did not succeed in recovering possession back from Jethmal. As regards areas Nos. 2 and 3 the Patta Officer was of the opinion that the parties should get their claim decided by a civil court before Patta is granted to any one of them. Both the parties preferred objections before the Patta Committee. After hearing the parties and examining the case in a highly careful and exhaustive manner the Patta Committee came to the conclusion that Mst. Gulab Kanwar was not eligible for grant of Patta in respect of areas Nos. 2 and 3. As regards the area No. 1, it was of the opinion that Patta could be granted under the provisions of S. 16 of the Marwar Patta Act to a person who may be adjudged best entitled to obtain the same. The Patta Committee was also inflyenced by the fact that Mst. Gulab Kanwar was in possession of area No. 1 at the time of applying for grant of Patta and her subsequent wrongful dispossession by Jethmal should not be allowed to stand in the way of granting a Patta in her favour. The Patta Committee, therefore, by its decision dated 19. 6. 52 directed the grant of a Patta in respect of area No. 1 on payment of usual charges and refused Patta in respect of areas Nos. 2 and 3. The applicant went up in appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Jodhpur, who by his decision dated 29. 1. 53 reversed the decision of the Patta Committee inasmuch as it related to the grant of a Patta in respect of area No. 1 and upheld that relating to refusal to grant Pattas in respect of areas Nos. 2 and 3. In other words, the decision of the Additional Commissioner was that Mst. Gulab Kanwar was not entitled to a grant of Patta for any of the lands and that no Patta could be issued in favour of Jethmal's sons as well. Jethmal's sons Shivdanmal and Hoshiarmal have come up in revision before us against this decision and as this revision was originally designated as an appeal, Laxmi Chand and Satya Narain who claim to have purchased land No. 1 from Mst. Chhoti, daughter of the deceased Mst. Gulab Kanwar, have filed their cross-objections. As the so called appeal of Shivdan Mal and Hoshiar Mal has been treated as a revision it would not be necessary to consider the cross-objection as a separate case and both the cases will be disposed of by this judgment.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the record as well. As far as the question of lands Nos 2 and 3 are concerned it can at once be stated that on Pattas in respect of them can be granted to either party for none of them has been able to establish its possession over any one or both of them. It has been held as a fact by the Patta Officer, the Patta Committee and the Additional Commissioner that both the parties have failed to lead any satisfactory evidence as regards their possession on the point. No valid reason whatsoever have been shown to exist as may justify and interference with the concurrent findings of all the subordinate courts on this point of fact. WE would, therefore hold that as far as the decision of the lower courts regarding refusal to grant Pattas of areas Nos. 2 and 3 to either party is concerned, it is hereby confirmed, and the revision to that extent is rejected.