GANGA PRASAD TIWARI Vs. MAHENDRA KUAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision, which has wrongly been styled as an appeal, arises out of the following circumstances - Mahendra Kumar, Gordhan Lal, etc. plaintiffs brought a suit against Ganga Prasad Tiwari and others, defendants, in the Court of the Assistant Collector, Jaipur for partition of an Udak State grant comprising of 8 pieces of agricultural lands in different villages of Tehsils Lalsoth, Dausa, Sawai Jaipur, etc (Details have been in given para 2 of the plaint ). The suit was contested by Tiwari Ganga Prasad on the ground that the State grant was resumed on 1. 8. 54 and hence a suit for its partition was not maintainable. It was also alleged that the estate was impartible. A preliminary issue was, therefore, struck by the trial court on the maintainability of the suit in view of the resumption of the grant prior to the institution of the suit. (The present suit was filed on 13. 8. 54 ). The learned Asstt. Collector after hearing the parties on the point came to the conclusion that even though the State grant stood resumed, the plaintiffs had a right to seek a declaration of their interest in the amount of compensation that was to follow the resumption of the grant and according to him the suit was, therefore, maintainable. A revision was filed against this order of the Asstt. Collector, dated 27. 11. 55 in the Board and the same was rejected on 22. 6. 55 on the ground that the matter could be agitated in second appeal and hence the revision was incompetent. Thereupon the defendant filed an appeal against the order of the trial court before the learned Additional Commissioner, Jaipur on 7. 7. 55 and prayed for the benefit of the provisions of secs. 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act. The learned Additional Commissioner rejected the request for extending the period of limitation, and rejected the appeal as being, barred by limitation. The defendants have come up in revision before us

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have looked into the record as well. On the question of limitation, however, we find no vaild grounds to differ from the learned Additional Commissioner. The revision was rejected by the Board on 22-6 55 and the appeal was filed before the Additional Commissioner on 7. 7. 55. No explanation for this delay has been offered by the applicants either in. the lower court or before use and in the absence of the same, it must be held that there is no sufficient or just cause for attracting the provisions of secs. 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act. There is yet, however, another point which deserves to be examined in the case and as it goes to the very root of jurisdiction, we have requested the learned counsel for the parties to address us on the same. It is an admitted fact that the state grant mentioned in Para 2. of the plaint stands resumed under the provision, of sec. 21 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms & Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (hereinafter to be Referred, as the Act ). The suit thus obviously becomes a suit for partition of an estate which is no longer in the possession or enjoyment of the defendant Ganga Prasad Tiwari, but stands resumed to the Government, as laid down in Sec. 22 (1) of the Act. It provides that from the date of resumption of any Jagir lands, notwithstanding anything contained in any existing Jagir law applicable thereto, the right, title and interest of the Jagirdar and of every other person: claiming; through him in his jagir land shall stand resumed to the Government free from all encumbrances. The learned counsel for the opposite party has argued two points which according to him make the suit maintainable by the trial court. WE shall discuss each of them separately.