SETH BHANWARLAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal by the plaintiff in a declaratory suit.

(2.) THE plaintiff instituted a suit in the court of Civil Judge, Jaipur, on the 1-8-1939, on the allegations that his father and one Mitha Lal were Ijaredars of certain villages, and in Samwat 1974 by certain arrangement with Mitha Lal the plaintiff's father came to have the following Ijaras till Samwat 1982: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_64_TLRAJ0_1956Html1.htm</FRM>

(3.) IT was alleged that the plaintiff's father sub-let the Ijara to the cultivators of the various villages at enhanced rates, but in Samwat 1979 the State cut an end to the Ijaras and began to collect the revenue itself. It was alleged that ate the time of the determination of the Ijaras Rs. 8,174/14/6 remained due against the tenants for which he obtained 135 decrees. One suit for recovery of Rs. 1000/against bhuramal remained pending, and another suit against the cultivators of Manoli remained pending. In the meanwhile, certain enquiries were made about the allegation that the plaintiff's father had recovered certain sums beyond what he was authorised to do under the Ijaranama, and it was ultimately decided by the Revenue Minister on 17-3-1936 that the Ijaredar had recovered the following items from the cultivators, which he was not authorised to do: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_64_TLRAJ0_1956Html2.htm</FRM> It was ordered that this excess amount of Rs. 3261/9/3 should be recovered from the plaintiff by the State. The plaintiff, after obtaining the proper sanction, which was the law in these times instituted a suit for declaration that the order of the revenue Minister dated 17-4-1936, directing recovery of Rs. 3261/9/3 from the plaintiff was void and Illegal.