- (1.)TWO appeals have been preferred against order dated 7th Oct. , 1965 of Additional Collector Udaipur, working as Collector in Jagir Section. These are practically cross appeals and will be disposed of by one judgment.
(2.)THE facts are that cases between Karansingh and Manohar Singh were remanded by the Board of Revenue with the remark that the claim for maintenance of Karan Singh should be decided according to law. After hearing the parties in compliance with this order, the Additional Collector Udaipur on 7-10-1965 held that Karan Singh should receive from the Ex-Jagirdar as maintenance allowance a sum of Rs. 100/- per month for 15 years. Karan Singh appeals and contends that 1/4th share be allowed to him by way of maintenance. THE Ex-Jagirdar, Manohar Singh's appeal is to the effect that Karan Singh should not receive any maintenance allowance whatever.
Counsel for both the appellants and respondents have been heard as also the Government Advocate and we have perused the record.

A preliminary objection was raised by the Government Advocate that the order of Additional Collector was passed under sec. 27 of the Resumption of Jagirs Act and was not appealable. He cited 1964 R. R. D. page 26 (Umed Singh vs. Shubh Karan ). Counsel for Karan Singh stated that the appeal had been presented under sec. 39 of the Resumption of Jagirs Act and as there was a question of title involved the matter fell within the scope of sec. 37. It was also pleaded that orders under sec. 27 are appealable. Decision dated 15-3-1967 in unreported case 41/64 (Budh Prakash vs. Sri Narain) was cited.

A perusal of the Act clearly shows that orders under sec. 27 of the Resumption of Jagirs Act are not appealable. These sections orders of which can be appealed against, are listed in sec. 39 of Resumption of Jagirs Act and sec. 27 does not figure in it. R. R. D. 1964 page 28 holds that a decision under sec. 27 is not appealable. The ruling cited by counsel for Karan Singh holds that the impugned order was made in proceedings under sec. 37 and so was appealable. It does not help Karan Singh. Nor can the impugned order be regarded as having been passed under sec. 37. The Board remanded the case with the direction that the question of maintenance should be decided. The Additional Collector has done so and expressly mentioned sec. 27. No question of title is considered in the order of the Additional Collector and sec. 37 is not attracted.

The preliminary objection of the Government Advocate is, therefore, sustained and we have no hesitation in holding that the instant appeals are not maintainable and should fail. We order accordingly. .

;