NARAIN SINGH Vs. BAJRANG SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under sec. 39 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) against an order of the learned Deputy Commissioner, Jagir, Tonk dated 26. 9. 56 fixing maintenance allowance u/sec. 32 of the Act.

(2.) WE have heard the learned for the parties and have examined the record as well. Smt. Sobhag Bai, Shri Bajrang Singh and Smt. Ram Kanwar Bai claimed maintenance from the jagirdar Narain Singh on the ground that they had been receiving the same in the past as well. The jagirdar contested the claims of the first two claims of the first two claimants on the ground that they were not entitled to any maintenance. On behalf of these claimants a compromise arrived at between the parties was produced in the court of the S. D. O. Tonk on 29. 12. 50, wherein the jagirdar had agreed to pay maintenance allowance. It appears that proceedings for fixation of maintenance allowance were taken by the claimants in that court and a compromise was arrived at between the parties and according to the terms of which jagirdar Narain Singh agreed to pay Rs 100/- to each Sobhag Bai & Bajrang Singh and this amount was accepted by them. While contesting the claims of these persons in the lower court the jagirdar alleged that his signatures to the compromise ware obtained while he was in an intoxicated state of mind. As regards Ram Kanwar Bai, the Jagirdar pleaded that as be was cultivating the land attached to the well given in her Havala, be previously used to pay 9 Mds of grain and Rs. 20/- cash which he would not pay hereafter as cash rents were fixed during settlement operations. The Deputy Collector Jagir after holding an in the case held that the compromise was a perfectly valid one and that the jagirdar had failed to establish that it was obtained out of him through improper means. Looking to the facts of the case the Deputy Collector, jagir fixed the allowance as below : - Smt. Sobhag Bai . . . Rs. 100/-as per compromise. Shri Bajrang Singh . . . Rs. 100/- as per compromise. Smt. Ram Kanwar Bai . . . Rs. 120/- in lieu of 9 Mds. of grain andrs. 20/- cash. A number of objections have been raised before us on behalf of the appellant as regards the validity of this claim. It was argued the appellant did not enter into any compromise, than even if it was entered into it was not binding on the appellant. It was also argued that Bajrang Singh and his daughter-in-law Smt. Sobhag Bai were not entitled to any maintenance as they were not related to the appellant and hence the appellant was not bound to maintain them. All these contention are without any substance. The certified copies of the proceedings that were carried out in the 1950 in the court of the S. D. O. Tonk leave no room to doubt that maintenance was claimed by Bajrang Singh and Sobhag Bai against the Jagirdar. In the compromise that was arrived at between them and which was duly attested by the court, the Jagirdar admitted that Bajrang Singh was his grand uncle (Baba) being a son of Durjan Singh. It has been admitted before us that Bhim Singh, the deceased husband of Sobhag Bai was a son of this Bajrang Singh. It is too late in the day now for the Jagirdar to deny this relationship. No evidence worth the name was produced by him to show that the compromise was extracted out of him through fraudulent or deceitful means. On the contrary, it has been admitted before us that during the last three years Both these claimants were paid maintenance allowance as per this agreement, which shows that it is of binding nature. It was also argued before us that under sec. 27 of the Act, maintenance allowance can be fixed only in favour of that person who is entitled to receive the same under any existing jagir law. The term 'existing Jagir Law' has been defined in sec. 2 (d) of the Act and runs as below : - "existing Jagir Law" means any Act, ordinance, regulation, rule, order, resolution, notification or bye-law relating to jagirs or jagirdars in force in the whole or any part of the State at the commencement of this Act and includes - (i) any custom or usage, relating to such jagirdars or jagirdars prevailing at the commencement of this Act in the whole or any part of the State and having the force of law, and (ii) the terms and conditions contained in any order of instrument granting, or recognising the grant of a jagirs;" On behalf of the respondents, our attention has been drawn to notification No. 680?/ M 167/rev. dated Jaipur the 5the June, 1945 published in the Jaipur Gazette, Volume LXIII No. 5471 dated 15th June, 1945. According to this notification, the Jaipur Government ordered that all suit against a State grantee by any Chhut Bhaiya, Maji, Thakurani, darogha or daroghan, for the grant of maintenance allowance or Khangi payable from the income of a State grant shall be exclusively triable by Revenue courts. This notification does unmistakably show that Chhut Bhaiyas, Majis etc. were eligible to claim maintenance of Khangi from a state grantee and that they were authorised to bring suits against the rate grantees to enforce their claims. Another notification on the subject No. 9527/rcv. /jj/292 dated Jaipur the 20th July, 1945 has also been cited in this connection The relates to the appointment of Tankhadars and their dependants Hitkarani Committees. The chief function of the committee was the settlement of disputes relating to Khangi payable to the widows and other dependants of the State grantees This notification contains a number of rules to enable the committee to discharge its functions, which however, are not relevant for purpose of the present appeal. The notification shows that in the territories included within the former Jaipur State the widows and other dependants of a State grantee were held entitled to receive maintenance allowance out of the income of the State grant and that right was considered to be a justiciable one inasmuch as it could be enforced in a court of law. It may be that the validity of these notifications may be open to challenge in the present set up but these notifications do point to the existence of a custom or usage relating to jagirs in accordance wherewith the State grantees were liable to maintain the widows and other dependants of the Thikana. The contention raised by the appellant, therefore, is without any substance. As regards Smt. Ram Kanwar Bai the appellant has frankly conceded before us that he does not desire to challenge the decision of the lower court as far as her claim is concerned. There is thus no substance in this appeal which is hereby rejected. .