JOGARAM CHELA KISHNARAM Vs. VIRDHA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision against the appellate decision of the Additional Commissioner, Jodhpur dated 3. 2. 56 in a case under the Marwar Patta Act.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record as well Put briefly the facts of the case are that Jogaram applied on 13. 11. 51 before the Patta Officer Municipality Jodhpur for renewal of the Patta standing in the name of the deceased Kishnaram on the ground of inheritance. During the course of the proceedings one Mst. Gori appeared and claimed renewal of the Patta in her own name on the basis of being the legal heir of the deceased Bhojram in preference to Jogaram A civil litigation ensued between the two and the Chief Judge of the Chief Court of the former Jodhpur State by his decision dated 19. 10. 46 rejected Mt. Gori's claim. When Mst Gori went up in appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Jodhpur against the decision of the Patta Committee dated 30. 1. 54 her appeal was dismissed but the learned Additional Commissioner directed the Patta Committee to make further inquiry before issuing Patta as to whether the respondent is entitled to receive Patta in his own name or as Mahant of Ramdwara At this stage objections were put up before the Patta Officer on behalf of the Meghwal community of Jodhpur claiming renewal of the Patta in the name of the community on the ground that Ramdwara belonged to that community. The Patta Officer after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the objection of the Meghwal community besides being beyond limitation was untenable on merits as well as it raised intricate questions of title and rights which a Patta court was not authorised to investigate. The Patta Committee agreed with the opinion of the Patta Officer and rejected the objection of the Meghwals on 19. 10. 55 and directed renewal of the Patta in the name of Jogaram. This order was challenged in appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner. The learned Additional Commissioner as can be gathered from bis judgment was conscious of the fact that the appeal was presented by an incompetent person and if it was entertained "would encourage protracted and unnecessary litigation and may prove a source of harassment to the public. " But the learned Additional Commissioner was influenced by the consideration that "the case was rightly or wrongly remanded to the lower court to make inquiry whether the respondent was entitled to receive Patta in his name or as a Mahant In order to make this inquiry the evidence of those persons who claim that the Ramdwara belongs to general public or to a particular community could not be refused. ' The learned Additional Commissioner therefore allowed the appeal and remanded the case with the direction that the objection of the appellant be heard and disposed of according to merits. Hence this revision by Jogaram.