MAHARAJA BHAGWATI SINGHJI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Kota dated 22-12-1964 dismissing his suit for possession of a building and for recovery of Rs 15,000/- as mesne profits thereof.

(2.) THE suit out of which this appeal arises, was brought by the appellant Bhagwatisingh, as plaintiff, on 4 5 1959 for declaration of title to and for possesion of the building known as Dharamshala situated in front of the Railway Station, Sumerganj Mandi, Indergarh, against the respondent-defendants, the State of Rajasthan and the Gram Panchayat Sumerganj Mandi. THE plaintiff alleged that the building was his private property under sec. 23 (l) (c) of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act 1952 (which will hereinafter be referred to as "the Act" ). His case was that the building was constructed during the minority of his father Maharaja Sumersingh by the Kamdar of the Court of Wards with the sanction of the Kota Durbar out of the income of the Thikana. THE Court of Wards wanted to construct the building as it would become a source of income to the Thikana. THE building comprised of a row of 10 shops with 30 kotharis on the ground-floor and an encomping ground, with a rest house on the first floor for the convenience of the travelling public. It, therefore, served the purpose of a custom's out post, a shopping centre, warehouse as well as that of a rest house.

(3.) THE learned Additional Government Advocate, however, vehemently argued that the opening words of the passage quoted above, really show that the finding of the Jagir Commissioner that the Dharamshala was not the private property of the plaintiff was, in fact, not challenged in appeal. We are afraid, the contention cannot be accepted. THE Board of Revenue has observed that the counsel for the plaintiff accepted the finding of the Jagir commissioner in so far as it related to the nature of the property. This could only mean that the plaintiff accepted that the property was a Dharamshala i. e. put to public use. It was nowhere conceded that the Dharamshala was not the private property of the plaintiff. On the contrary, the counsel appearing for the plaintiff relied on the decision of the Board of Revenue in State vs. Bhagwatisingh (2) where there was a dispute in respect of a similar property i. e another Dharamshala, located at Indergarh and in that case, the Board there held that it was the private property of the plaintiff THE question whether the Dharamshala was or was not the private property of the plaintiff was very much in issue before the Board of Revenue and we are bound by the finding reached by the Board.