SEDIA Vs. LUIS DSILVA
LAWS(RAJ)-1952-2-15
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on February 27,1952

SEDIA Appellant
VERSUS
LUIS DSILVA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

H. D. Ujjwal, J. - (1.)THIS is an application in revision from the order of the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur, dated 12. 11. 1951 by which he rejected the appeal filed by the petitioners against an order of the Additional Collector, Jaipur passed on an application under sec. 118 of the Jaipur State-Grants Land Tenures Act, 1947.
(2.)THE applicants are chhutbhais of Thikana Benar and held certain land in village Boithawala. THEy applied to the Tehsildar Jaipur for making hunt of the produce of the land and to arrange for payment of their share of the rent from the produce.
The tenants against whom this application was made alleged that the land did not belong to the applicants but belonged to the tikoi jagirdar and that they had paid rent to him. Secondly the crop of Smt. 2007 regarding which this application was filed had also been removed and the question of kunt did not remain. The Tehsildar dismissed the application but the Collector remanded the case for further enquiry. The applicants preferred an appeal against the order of the Collector which was rejected by the Additional Commissioner. It is against the order of the Additional Commissioner that the tenants have come up in revision to this court. It is urged on their behalf that the dispute between the parties is not of appraisement or estimate of the produce which has been done by the jagirdar but of the right of the applicants, chhutbhayes, to take rent from the petitioners. The petitioners deny that they are tenants of the applicants. Further that as the crop of Smt. 2007 had been long taken away such application did not lie.

The learned Additional Commissioner has held that at the time the application was made the crop of Smt. 2007 had not been removed from the fields and hence the application was in order.

Sec. 61 of the Jaipur Tenancy Act lays down the conditions under which such an application can be made. It runs as follows - "when the rent is payable by a division of produce or is based on an estimate or appraisement of the standing crop - (a) if either the ijaredar or the tenant neglects to attend at the proper time; or (b) if there is a dispute about the division, quantity or value of the produce, an application may be presented by either party to the Tehsildar requesting that an officer be deputed to make division, estimate, or appraisement," The intention of this section was clearly to provide for making an estimate or appraisement of the produce where the tenant either neglected it and did not attend or the tenant and the landlord could not agree about the estimate or appraisement of the quantity or value of the produce. The function of the officer who is deputed is to prepare an estimate or appraisement of the produce which may then be divided according to the award given by such officer.

This section does not contemplate to provide an alternative remedy for a suit for recovery of rent or for a summary settlement of disputes between the landlords and tenants about the liability of the tenants to pay rent to the applicant. Such questions of liability to pay rent can only be settled by a regular suit. The difficulty of knowing the quantity of the produce after it is removed from the field or the threshing floor is what is meant to be overcome by this summary procedure. If no appraisement is made it may lead to any amount of difficulty to prove the quantity of the produce. This can only be done while the produce is still in the field or on the threshing floor but not otherwise. I am unable to understand how any estimate or appraisement can be made two years after the crop had been removed. What is wanted by the applicants now is not appraisement or estimate of the crop but recovery of the rent which they alleged to be due from the tenant. The tenants, however, alleged that they had paid the rent to the tikai jagirdar. What is, therefore, to be determined is whether the tenants are liable to pay rent to the chhut-bhaia, applicants, or to the tikai jagirdar. Such questions of liability to pay rent cannot be determined by such an application. It can, therefore, serve no useful purpose to conduct any further enquiries in the matter and I would, with the concurrence of my learned* colleague, accept the revision application and hold the application infructuous so far as making of appraisement or an estimate of the produce is concerned and incompetent to decide the liability of the tenants to pay rent to the applicants. The application would, therefore, be dismissed. .



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.