BHONRILAL Vs. GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of the case which has given rise to this appeal against an order of the Additional Collector, Jaipur, dated 20. 7. 56, may, in brief, be stated as below.

(2.) THE Patwari of village Malwas reported that Mst. Bhoori who was a chakdar and had some other movable and immovable properties had died without leaving any heir; and that Bhonrilal, the appellant, had unlawfully taken possession of the property left by her. A preli-minary enquiry was made by the Tehsildar. Bhonrilal, the appellant, filed objections before the Tehsildar and stated that Ram Sahai, the husband of the deceased widow did not die heirless as the appellant being one of his nearest reversioners had performed the last rites of the deceased as well as her husband Ram Sahai who had adopted him long ago. In support of this, the appellant produced several witnesses as well as the pedigree table. THE Tehsildar however, held that the appellant failed to prove that he was the lawful heir of the deceased. Accordingly, he proposed that the property left by the deceased should escheat to the Government. THE S. D. O. endorsed this recommendation and submitted the case to the Collector. THE appellant filed objections before the learned Additional Collector who heard the case and urged that he being the nearest reversioner of the husband of the deceased was his lawful heir ; and that the property left by the deceased could not therefore, vest by escheat in the Government. THE Additional Collector, however, overruled the contention of the appellant and accepted the recommendation of the lower courts. An appeal against this order was filed before the learned Additional Commissioner, who after examining the record of the case, ordered that as the matter deserved further enquiry the case be remanded to the Collector for giving another opportunity to the appellant to argue his case THE learned Additional Collector observed that in spite of several adjournments the appellant did not argue his case but insisted on for producing further evidence to prove the pedigree table which could not be allowed at this belated stage. He accordingly confirmed his previous decision and directed the property to go by escheat to the Government. It is against this order that the appellant filed this appeal before us under sec. 7 of the Rajasthan Escheats Regulating Act, 1956.