PAB SINGH Vs. SOMBAR BHARATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the appellate decision of the Additional Commissioner, Jodhpur, dated 25th February, 1955,upholding the decision of the trial court on the point as to whether any plea of proprietary title was involved in the case or not.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the record as well. The only question involved for determination in the appeal is as to whether the plea of proprietary right is involved in the case and if so, is it clearly untenable and intended solely to oust the jurisdiction of the revenue court. As laid down by the Rajas-than High Court in Chunia vs. Revenue Board (1954, RLW 384) the question has to be determined after looking to the revenue law in force in the area to which the case relates in order to decide whether any plea of proprietary right could have been raised at all according to the facts available from the plaint and the written statement. It was further laid down by their lordships that the minimum necessary, before any holder of land can claim proprietary title, is that he must have a heritable and transferable right. The plaintiff in the case claiming himself to be a Jagirdar of Paharpur sued the defendants for arrears of rent in respect of the land in dispute with the allegation that he was holding the same as a tenant under him The defendant in his written statement claimed himself to be the Jagirdar of the land in dispute since generations and denied his status of a tenant. Under the Marwar Land Revenue Act (Chapter X) all State grantees have been given rights of inheritance according to the personal law (excepting scheduled Jagirs) and restricted rights of transfer. Thus by applying the test laid down in the ruling referred to above it would be clear that the defendant by claiming himself to be the Jagirdar of the land in dispute did raise a plea of proprietary right. This brings us to the question as to whether there is any substance in it or not and whether it is so cleary untenable as apparently to be intended to oust the jurisdiction of the revenue court. It is significant to observe in this connection that the appellant never thought it fit to press this question till the entire evidence of the parties was recorded and that too during the course of last five years for which time, the suit has been pending all along. The appellant has not been able to show any Patta or Sanad or deed of grant in respect of the Jagir land claimed by him. He has not been able to produce any relevant entry from the old State Records which may lend any support to his claim. The papers drawn up during the last settlement make it clear that the village Paharpura is in the Sasan Jagir of Sombar Bharti respondent and that there are no other Bhomia Inamdaran and Dolidars therein. The appellant had, in his statement, dated 8. 9. 50, with which he was confronted during the course of the cross-examination, himself admitted that he was paying 4 kailsis of wheat and Rs. 10/- for Kharia in respect of foujbal peta to Sombar Bharati respondent. The appellant however, has attempted to explain this statement by reference to some other land. In the Parcha khautoni also the respondent is entered as Sasandar of the village. As provided in sec. 105 of the Marwar Land Revenue Act, a presumption of genuineness attaches to these entries The appellant has not been able to lead any reliable evidence as may have attempted a rebuttal of this presumption. The facts existing on the record, therefore, make it clear that the plea is clearly untenable and is so frivolous and baseless as makes it apparent that it had been adopted merely to oust the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court. The decision of the lower appellate court, therefore, is perfectly correct and calls for no interference. The appeal is, hereby, dismissed .