VITHALNATH Vs. KALU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two plaintiffs' second appeals came originally for hearing before a learned single Judge who has referred them to a Division Bench as important and compli-cated questions of law arise for decision therein.

(2.) APPEAL No, 251 of 1953 arises out of suit No. 53 of 1951 filed by Goswami Vithalnath of Kankroli, plaintiff, and is directed against the judgments and decree of the Civil Judge, Udaipur, in appeals Nos. 61 and 62 of 1953 by which he allowed the defendant's appeal and set aside the decree of the Munsiff and dismissed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of what is called 'jhumpi Bhara' and also dismissed the plaintiff's cross appeal for the amount of arrears of Jhumpi Bhara disallowed by the trial court.

(3.) THE Lagats Abolition Ordinance consists of nine sections in all, and if we may say, without any dis-respect, is an unhappily worded piece of legislation. This Ordinance was obviously intended to abolish all lagats in the whole of the former State of Rajasthan which consisted of as many as ten States and yet the formers of this Ordinance failed to give any definition of the term legat in the Ordinance. For aught we know, there might well have been different lagats in different princely States, and for a proper application of the Ordinance, it was both desirable and necessary that the term lagat should have been defined by the Ordinance. Fortunately for the area from which this litigation arises the definition of the word lagat is to be found in Kanun Maal Mswati (Act. No. 5 of 1947), and it was argued before us that we should apply this definition to the Lagats Abolition ordinance in so far as the former State of Mewar is concerned, from which part of Rajasthan these cases come. We may point out in this connection that when the former State of Rajasthan came to be formed, an Ordinance was issued named as the United-State of Rajasthan Administration Ordinance (No. I) of 1948 By sec. 3 of the Ordinance, it was provided that all laws, Ordinances, Acts, Rules etc. having the force of law in any covenanting State shall continue to remain in force until repealed or amended by a competent authority or unless otherwise provided by any law. THE Kanun Maal Mewar was not abolished at all relevant times for the purposes of, the present litigation and therefore, we consider that we are not unjustified in looking to the Kanun Maal Mewar for the definition of the term lagat so far as the former State of Mewar is concerned. THE term lagat according to the definition given in sec. 8 of this enactment may be rendered as a levy not included in the Maal Hasil and which is payable according to the Kanun-Maal Mewar or the rules made thereunder or in accordance with the village custom by an agriculturist or by any other person.