MODI, J.—This is a writ application by the petitioners Ramdhan and Mst. Singari, husband and wife, against an order of the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, dated the 21st Feb., 1958, which arises under the circumstances presently to be mentioned.

2. One Lachman son of Maoaram Jat of Mundwa was admitted a Bapidar of six fields bearing Khasra Nos. 201, 202, 1156, 1157, 1734 and 1849 and measuring in all 64 Bighas in village Mundwa. He died some time in 1949 and was survived by his two daughters Msts. Singari and Tikuri who were both married to the petitioner Ramdhan. Respondent No. 1 Bhura is the brother of the deceased Lachhman. The case of the petitioner is that Lachhman had executed his last will dated the 12th October, 1943, (which was registered on the same day) with respect to his entire movable and immovable properties, including the six fields mentioned above, in favour of his two daughters aforesaid. Consequently, after Lachhmans death, the petitioners and Mst. Tikuri came into possession of the fields in question and are still in possession thereof. Dispute soon arose, however, between the petitioners and Mst. Tikuri on the one side and Bhura on the other. In a proceeding under sec. 145 Cr. P.C. relating to these fields, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nagaur, maintained the possession of the petitioners over these fields by his order dated the 9th August, 1957. In the meantime, respondent Bhura made an application for mutation before the Tehsildar, Nagaur. The Teh-sildar found that Mst. Singari and Mst. Tikuri were in actual possession of the fields, and, therefore, he rejected Bhuras prayer and ordered mutation to be recorded in favour of Msts. Singari and Tikuri, daughters of Lachhman. Bhura went in appeal to the Collector, Nagaur. The Collector reversed the Tehsildars order holding that the daughters were not entitled to any right of inheritance under sec. 14 of the Marwar Tenancy Act, 1949 (Act No. XXXIX of 1949), and consequently ordered that mutation be effected in favour of Bhura respondent. Against this order, there was an appeal to the Additional Commissioner, Jodhpur, who held that as the daughters were in possession of the fields in question, they were entitled to mutation, and, therefore, he set aside the order of the Collector and gave a direction that if the parties wished to have the question of title adjudicated upon, they should have recourse to a regular suit in a competent court of law. Bhura preferred a revision against the above order to the Board of Revenue. The Board, by their order, which is impugned before us, reversed the decision of the Additional Commissioner and ordered mutation in favour of the respondent Bhura. The petitioners have filed the present writ application against the order of the Board.

3. The principal contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners against the order of the Board is that the approach of the Board to the entire question before them was fundamentally incorrect, that the question of mutation rightly fell to be decided on the basis of possession and possession alone, and, therefore, the learned Members of the Board had fallen into a manifest and serious error of law in deciding the proceeding before them on the basis of title. It is unfortunate that the respondents are not represented before us. But all the same, we have taken every care to examine the correct legal position and are satisfied that the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners are not without force.

4. By way of clearing the ground, we may mention at once that the deceased Lachh-man was admittedly a Bapidar of the fields in question, and, further, that after his death, his two daughters Msts. Singari and Tikuri have throughout remained in possession of them. It may also be pointed out in this connection that the story of their possession is fully supported by the order which was made by the Magistrate in the proceedings under sec. 145 Cr. P. C. It is against this background that the q

Click Here to Read the rest of this document