PURANDEVI Vs. AIDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application in revision has been filed against an order of the learned Additional Commissioner Jodhpur, dated 22.6.59, whereby the order of the trial court for the appoint, ment of a receiver in respect of the land in dispute was set aside. In order to evaluate the decision under revision a brief narration of facts leading to this revision petition seems to be essential.

(2.) The plaintiff applicant filed a suit under sec. 88 and 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act for declaration of his status as a Khatedar tenant in possession of the suit land, the ejectment of the non -applicants who had unlawfully taken possession of it and award of damages and mesne profits amounting to Rs. 1986/ - in the court of the Sub -Divisional Officer, Jodhpur. It was urged that the suit land which was once owned by Bhagwan Dass etc. was purchased by the Girdharilal one of the applicants, by means of a registered sale -deed dated 29.7.53. The said land was cultivated by Girdharilal, the vendee and rent thereof was paid to the Jagirdar of Salori through Hasiyat Court Jodhpur from Svt. 2000 to 2005, that Girdhari Lal gifted away this land to his mother Mst. Puran Devi and Murarilal, his blind brother -applicants and by means of a registered deed on 21.3.49, {which continued to be cultivated by or on behalf of the plaintiff -applicants up to 1956, when on 5.9.56 the non -applicants wrongfully entered the land and started ploughing it by over -turning the standing crop. The applicants, thereupon filed a criminal complaint in the court of a Magistrate, but in the meanwhile the opposite party withdrew themselves from the land and ceased to make any interference with its cultivation by the applicants. The land was then got cultivated by the applicants and the crop of wheat was sown thereon. But again the non -applicants trespassed over the land on 18.11.56 and over -turned the standing crop ploughing it themselves. A criminal complaint was lodged under Sec. 145 Cr.P.C. in the court of the Magistrate, who by his order u/Sec. Cr.P.C. attached the land and the produce was auctioned for Rs. 500/ -. The application under sec. 145 Cr.P.C. was ultimately dismissed and the plaintiff -applicants were directed to have their claim determined by a competent Court. Hence the present suit was instituted. The suit was resisted oh several grounds by the {defendants -non -applicants. In the meantime an application was put up by the applicants supported by an affidavit under sec. 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act for attachment of the standing crop of tobacco and Kadu sown by the defendants on the suit land and also to restrain them from alienating it to other persons which if not prevented now would cause irreparable loss to the plaintiffs. In the alternative it was also prayed that a receiver be appointed to take possession of the land. The trial court allowed this application and ordered that a receiver be appointed who will take possession over the land, and the crop sown by the defdt. The payment of the sum of Rs. 500/ - on account of the auction price of the produce for the period when the land was attached by the criminal court was also stopped. In appeal the learned Additional Commissioner vacated the order for the appointment of receiver

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that an appeal against the order of the trial court was not competent to the Additional Commissioner and his decision, therefore, was without jurisdiction. The submission is that the order dated 26.5.59 was an incomplete order inasmuch as that instead of actually appointing a receiver the trial court simply made an order that the receiver should be appointed and adjourned the case to a future date and that an incomplete order of this nature was not appealable. A.I.R. 1938 Nag. 50 and A.I.R. 1934 Nag. 64 were cited in support of this contention. The learned counsel for the opposite party, however, urged that the various High Courts have taken different views in the matter and the trend of decisions of the High Courts of Madras, Lahore, Patna and Travancore Cochin is to the effect that under O. 43, R. 1 C.P.C. such orders are appealable even if a receiver is not actually appointed. Without entering into a controversy on this issue, which, to our mind appears to be more of academic nature, we are of the opinion that every order made by an Asstt. Collector or a Sub -Divisional Officer in any proceeding under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act except where it appears to be purely of interlocutory nature not determining the rights of the parties, is appealable to the Commissioner or Addl. Commissioner under sec. 225 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the appeal was competent to the learned Addl. Commissioner and accordingly rule out the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant. The other contention that the trial court having carefully looked into the pleadings of the parties and the documentary evidence produced by the applicant, which consisted of certified copies of the revenue records prepared from time to time in which the land was recorded in the name of the applicant, applied its mind judicially and exercised its discretion in a legal and dispassionate manner in favour of the applicant for the appointment of a receiver and that the lower appellate court in the absence of any compelling circumstan -ces, was not justified in interfering with and setting aside the same.