LAWS(RAJ)-1957-3-20

BHURAMAL Vs. STATE

Decided On March 19, 1957
BHURAMAL Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against an appellate order of the Additional Collector, Jaipur, dated 5.5.1956 upholding the order of the Assistant Collector directing resumption of the appellants grant under the Jaipur Matmi Rules, 1945.

(2.) A simple point of law is involved for determination in this second appeal before us, and to appreciate if it is necessary to give the facts in brief. Shri Bux, the last holder of the grant died about 40 years prior to the presentation of the application for grant of Matmi by the appellant Bhuramal in 1949. Bhuramal who gave out his age as 50 years on 5.6.49 when examined stated that his father Shri Bux died 40 years ago and that he was not in a position to give the year or samvat of his demise. He further stated that in Shialu Svt. 2005 the grant measuring about 300 bighas was placed under Arai Khalsa and hence he was thereby compelled to apply for grant of Matmi. During the course of the enquiry that was held by the subordinate officers it was found that the grant stood entered in Nuskha Punya and in the Daftar Mawazna in the name of Sukhram S/o Jagram and grandson of Harkishan, a descendant of Madho and that the appellant Bhuramal was a direct male lineal descendant of this Sukhram. It was also found that Bhuramal was in possession of the grant which measured about 128 bighas 18 biswas by an iron chain. The subordinate officers, came to the conclusion that as far as the appellants title to the grant was concerned it was established beyond all possibilities of doubt. They, however, directed resumption of the grant on the ground that as the last -holder had died prior to 15th April, 1927 and as no application for Matmi was made within 6 months from the 20th May, 1936, hence the grant was liable to resumption under sec. 16(1) (c) of the Jaipur Matmi Rules. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued before us that the case is not governed by this provision of law.

(3.) Rule 16, on which the learned counsel for the appellant bases his argument runs as below : - -