- (1.) APPEAL No. 23 and 30 of 1959 of Jaipur have been filed under sec. 39 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against one and the same order of the learned Jagir Commissioner dated (27. 1. 5 9)/ (4. 2. 59) whereby the claim of Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh, ex-jagirdar Dudu was finalised under sec. 32 (2) of the Act. Thikana Dudu was resumed on 4. 2. 56. Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh, ex-Jagirdar Thikana Dudu, hereinafter referred to as the jagirdar, filed his claim for compensation and rehabilitation grant on 17. 4. 56. The total income in this claim is alleged to be Rs. 68,447-0-6 as below : - Income from Amount 1. Land Revenue 57,054/2/6/- 2. Forest 915/11/9/- 3. Grazing dues 5,439/15/- 4. Mines 141/- 5. Non-agricultural uses of land. . . 447/4/3/- 6. Sale of Abadi and culturable land 2,123/11/- 7. Salt compensation 260/5/- 8. Excise compensation 1,494/15/- 9. Tribute from sub-grantees 500/- 68,447/-/6
(2.) ON 12. 7. 56 the jagirdar was required to indicate the income which he had realised after 1. 2. 56 and also to submit an application for interim compensation. This application was submitted by the jagirdar on 30. 7. 56 wherein the total income of the jagirdar was shown as Rs. 68,447/-/6, i. e. the same which was entered in the original claim. ON 7. 8. 56 the office of the Additional Commissioner, Jagir held this income to be Rs. 66,424 for purposes of interim compensation. I Thereupon the jagirdar submitted an application to the Jagir Commissioner on 19. 10. 56 to the effect that a sum of Rs. 2,023/-has been deducted from the income of the Thikana as stated by him, that this deduction was unjustified, that interim compensation had been worked out on the amount so reduced and that the same may be corrected accordingly. A similar request was put up before the Jagir Commissioner on 14. 11. 56. ON 12. 6. 56 the jagirdar put up an application before the Jagir Commissioner alleging therein that the claim filed on 1. 4. 56 (correct date 17. 4. 56) was wrong as it was filed by a Kamdar, who had no legal knowledge, that he was ignorant of the certain items of income which should have been included within the claim and that the same was likely to cause considerable loss to him. Some illustrations were also mentioned in this application. ONe was with regard to income from contract of fish. The other was with regard to income from sale of grass, wood, Longphala etc. The learned Jagir Commissioner ordered that "the idea of the fact that the Kamdar has not done this or that cannot be entertained. However, he is allowed to submit claim and only on verification it will be considered as to how much and what amount should be allowed". The amended claim was subsequently produced on 14. 6. 57 with a total income of Rs. 95,641/6/- as below : - Income from Amount 1. Land Revenue 53,835/6/3 2. Forest 985/11/2 3. Grazing dues 5,430/15/ 4. Mines 141/-/ 5. Non-agricultural uses of land 31,328/14/ 6. Sale of Aabadi and culturable land 2,093/3/1 7. Salt compensation 260/ 5/ 8. Excise compensation 1,494/15/ 9. Tribute from sub-grantees 32/ - / - 95,641/ 61- The learned Jagir Commissioner on the basis of a preliminary enquiry conducted by the Deputy Collector and the Tehsildar admitted Rs. 81,643. 26 as the gross income and provisionally determined the compensation and rehabilitation grant accordingly. On notices being issued to the jagirdar and the State Government various objections were raised against the provisional award,by the Government Advocate. After recording some evidence and hearing the parties the learned Jagir Commissioner finally determined the gross income of the Thikana as below : - Income from Amount 1. Income from Land Revenue 42,610/28 2. Income from grazing dues 540/00 3. Income from Mines 61/83 4. Non-agricultural uses of land 26,933/68 5. Sale of Abadi and agricultural land 2,024/90 6.- Salt compensation 245/00 7. Excise compensation 1,494/94 8. Tribute (Tanka) 32/00 73,942/63 Appeal No. 28 has been filed by the State Government and challenges two items only-non-agricultural uses of land and sale of abadi and cultural land. In other words, the State Government has no objections against the residuary six items. Appeal No. 30 has been filed by the jagirdar and challenges the deductions made by the lower court in respect of the two items referred to above, namely, non-agricultural uses and sale of land. Objections have also been raised with regard to deductions amounting to Rs. 10,190/75. The learned Government Advocate while arguing the appeal of the State Government has laid much stress upon the fact that the original claim filed by the jagirdar on 17. 4. 56 was completely silent in respect of both these items, that no account books were produced by the jagirdar at the right time, that the account books were produced after the production of the amended claim, that most of the items have no corresponding receipts and that the cumulative effect of all these factors should be the utter discredibility of the account books. It has been replied by the learned advocate appearing for the jagirdar that the initial claim was the product of a misconception on the part of a petty employee of the jagirdar, that the belated production of the account books need not necessarily mean that the account books are not genuine and had been tampered with. It was also urged that the jagir was big enough to justify the income claimed for it. We have bestowed our careful consideration upon the various aspects of the case. The initial claim was filed on 17. 4. 56. The jagirdar in his application dated 12. 6. 57 sought to discredit it on the ground that it was presented by a Kamdar. This is manifestly wrong. The original claim bears the signature of the the jagirdar himself on every page. It bears the prescribed verification as well which is to the effect that the claim was correct to his knowledge and belief. We fail to understand as to how the jagirdar could allege that this claim was presented by his Kamdar. The account books must have been the basis of the preparation of this claim for necessary details have been given in this claim. Neither it has been alleged nor can it be possibly argued before us that this claim was prepared merely from mental recollections. Such a thing would be sheer impossibility. This claim was undoubtedly prepared from account books and without the authority of the jagirdar, the Kamdar could have had no access to them. It is, therefore, puerile on the part of the jagirdar to allege that this claim was prepared by his Kamdar. In fact the subsequent conduct of the jagirdar himself gives the lie direct to such a reckless allegation. In obedience to the notice issued to him on 12. 7. 56 the jagirdar filed a claim for interim compensation on 30. 7. 56 under his own signatures. The total income given therein is exactly identical with that included in the first claim. The jagirdar has no explanation whatsoever as to how could this have happened. On 19. 10. 56 the jagirdar again reiterated the veracity of his total income of Rs. 68,447/-/6. This was repeated once again on 13th November, 1956. Thus from 17. 4. 56 to 12. 11. 56, i. e. during this period of about 7 months the constant stand taken by the jagirdar was that his income was as stated in the initial claim, that the reduction made in the interim compensation was uncalled for and that the original amount of the initial claim should be restored. The claim and all the subsequent documents referred to above bear the signatures of the jagirdar himself and no Kamdar comes in. Thus the very basis on which a subsequent amendment was sought by the jagirdar stands demolished. It was with this background that the learned Government Advocate argued that the presentation of the amended claim was evidently a product of afterthought. This argument cannot be held to be totally void of substance. Motives behind human actions are not capable of ocular demonstration. They are to be inferred from actions alone. In the present case the conduct of the jagirdar himself from 17. 4. 56 to 14-11 56 was constantly of one pattern, i. e. desirous of establishing the genuineness of the total income claimed in the initial statement. Sudden change occurring in this attitude is capable theoratically of a number of explanations. It may have been due to incorrect or erroneous arithmetical calculations but this has not been alleged by the jagirdar. It may be due to a reference to wrong account books. This too has not been suggested by the jagirdar. By resorting to this process of elimination there remains only one possible explanation, namely presentation of a wrong claim with ulterior motives. The subsequent claim dated 12. 6. 57 is based on account books maintained by the jagirdar. So was the first claim. A heavy burden lay upon the jagirdar to show as to how the first claim was compiled, or to be more accurate how two substantially differing claims were compiled from one and the same set of account books. No satisfactory explanation has been offered in this behalf. In fact, the possibility of such an explanation ever coming to light was completely over-ruled by the failure of the jagirdar to examine the scribe of the account books or the person who prepared the claim. This brings us to the veracity of the account books themselves. The initial claim was presented on 17. 4. 56 and the subsequent claim was presented about 14 months thereafter. We have on record the report of the Tehsildar Dudu dated 31. 3. 58 and that of the Deputy Collector Jagir dated 24. 3. 58 which are very significant in this context. The Deputy Collector Jagir stated that the jagirdar did not take any steps whatsoever for the verification of his first claim, nor did he produce any record in support of the same. Similarly the Tehsildar stated that the jagirdar was informed a number of times to produce his record after presentation of the initial claim for its verification but the jagirdar never thought it fit to do so. It was also stated by the Tehsild?r that the jagirdar produced his record after presentation of the amended claim. These happenings speak volumes in favour of the version put forth by the Government Advocate. Why was the jagirdar not willing to produce his record for verification in the Tehsil for 14 months? why was it that immediately after the presentation of the amended claim the record was produced without any hitch. There is obviously some connection between the two and there arises a strong presumption that the record was being detained deliberately to negative the first claim and to support the subsequent one. A record of this type which could thus be made to answer to a particular demand deserves to be viewed with the greatest possible care and scrutiny. Another salient feature which emerges for consideration is the manner in which the account books were suppressed by the jagirdar. Sec. 31 (3) of the Act lays down that where a jagirdar relies upon any documents, whether in his possession or power or not as evidence in support of the statement of claim he shall enter such documents in a list to be added or annexed to the statement of claim. No satisfactory explanation has been offered as to why this mandatory provision of law was not complied with. We may also refer to the provisions of Rule 21 of the Rules framed under the Act. The jagirdar was duty bound to hand over the revenue records at the time of the resumption. We have purposely refrained from refering to sec. 22a of the Act in this connection as it was inserted in July 1959, i. e. long after the resumption of this jagir and was not given any retrospective effect. However, the provisions of law which were in existence at the relevant date and which have been referred to by us leave I no room to doubt that the jagirdar was bound to produce the documents and that his failure in this behalf was not a mere accident. On the contrary looking to the manner in which the records were subsequently produced and the events that took place in the interval raise a strong presumption against the genuineness of the account books.
(3.) HAVING thus commented generally we will now proceed to subject the account books to an intrinsic scrutiny with a view to determine its credibility or otherwise. The first consideration that arises is the withholding of the scribe of the account books for the Smt. years relevant for purposes of this claim. One of the objections raised by the learned Government Advocate against the provisional award was that the account books appear to have been written at one time by one and the same man. Even then the scribe was not thought fit to be examined in the case. In the absence of any satisfactory explanation the legal presumption would be that the evidence of the scribe if made available would have been adverse to the jagirdar. The evidence that has been led in the case is much void the mark. The witnesses are either unconcerned with the transactions as entered in the account books or have only vague things to depose. Jaidev a witness of the jagirdar deposed that income used to accrue to the Thikana from Palapani etc. and that in Svt. 2008 and 2009 he had also taken grass for about Rs. 700/ -. This amount finds no mention in the account books. The same may be said about the statement of Ghisa. To appreciate the condition of the accounts we got one statement prepared from the account books by the jagirdar himself with regard to the income for svt. years 2008, 2009 and 2010 in respect of the main terms of the non-agricultural uses of land-ghas, pala, darkhat and loongpapri. It was also found that this Thikana used to issue receipts for payments received by it. The statement was therefore required to show as to whether any receipt was issued in respect of the items included within the claim or not. The result was that out of 8 villages included in this jagir no system of issue of receipts existed in 7 of them, namely Gangari Kalan, Dhupri, Kachnar, Palia Kalan, Hathukra, Bhanslana and Hawaspura. Thus the entries in respect of the items of the non-agricultural uses of land in respect of these 7 villages of this Thikana have no corroboration by receipt issued to the payees. In some cases of village Dudu of this Thikana receipts were found to have been issued in respect of petty sums of a few annas or a couple of rupees. But surprisingly enough no such receipts were issued in the following cases: - 1. Sale of trees. (1) Rs. 800/ -/- from Chandmal (2) Rs. 295/12/- from Chandmal (3) Rs. 660/ -/- from Gangaram 2. Sale of Loongpapri. (1) Rs. 551/- from Dholu Bodu (2) Rs. 1938/- from Dholu Bodu 3. Sale of Pala. (1) Rs. 664/- from Asamian (2) Rs. 557/- from Kalu Numerous other instances may be given where receipts were not issued even though the amounts received were considerable. The explanation offered in respect of other villages is that no rokars and khatas were maintained at places other than Dudu, that one patta official looked after the affairs of the Thikana in those places and collected sums throughout the year and got them deposited at the end of the year at the head quarters of the Thikana. This system can hardly be believed to be reliable either from the view-point of the Thikana itself or from that of those who had occasions to enter into dealings with it. It is difficult to believe that such a system could have been prevalent without the imposition of any checks or counter-checks. Similarly with regard to the omission of receipts of village Dudu itself the explanation is that the jagirdar used to receive payments directly. But that is no reason why receipts were not issued to the payee. It may again be stated here that regard being had to the manner in which the account books were deliberately suppressed for a considerable period and were eventually produced to support an inflated claim it should have been clear enough to the jagirdar that a very heavy burden lay upon him to prove the authenticity and reliability of the account books if he wanted to impose any liability upon the State Exchequer on their basis. Even with the consciousness of this burden of proof lying upon him he omitted to lead such evidence as could have been held to have discharged the same. Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act lays down that entries in books of account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant but shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability. What would amount to independent evidence sufficient to corroborate the entries in the account books depends upon the facts of each case. What is necessary to be seen in each case is whether besides the entries in the account books, there is any evidence to prove that the transactions referred to in those entries actually took place. Where the transactions relied upon are numerous and extend over some lenth of time it would be hardly reasonable to accept independent evidence in proof of each and every particular transaction. But there must be some evidence to corroborate these entries. Such corroboration is best afforded by the evidence of the person who wrote the account books and in whose presence the transactions took place. He need not prove each and every particular transaction. If he proves the entries written by him and states that the transactions referred to in those entries actually took place in his presence or to his knowledge the effect will substantially be the same. But in cases of dispute there ought to be specific evidence to prove those particular transactions. The failure of the jagirdar to examine the scribe of the account books in the case is thus a serious obstacle in the way of their being held as proved for imposing any liability upon any body else. (AIR Rajasthan 1961, page 52 ). We would now examine each of the two items separately. The learned lower court has allowed Rs. 2024-90 np. on account of sale of Abadi and culturable land. Out of this total amount Rs. 1174-00 np. accrued from sale of culturable land and the learned Government Advocate objects to the inclusion of this amount. Lengthy arguments were advanced before us for and against this item. We need not go into them as this question was examined by a Full Bench of the Board in Maharaj Hamir Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan. It was held therein that premiums charged for conferring khatedari rights cannot be held as equivalent to sale of culturable land and as such find no place in any of the items of second schedule of the Act. A sum of Rs. 1174-00 np. shall therefore be deducted from the amount allowed to the Jagirdar under head "sale of Abadi and culturable land. Income from non-agricultural uses of land was originally claimed as Rs. 1341. 13 np. by the Jagirdar. This was alleged to have accrued exclusively from Beed Grass. In the amended claim not only income from Beed Grass was raised from Rs. 1341-13 np. to Rs. 14770. 40 np. but also items 1ike fish contract, sale of trees, Loong Patri, pala, pani poola, Bones, Sikns, Gond, sale of Gullu and Gazari were included. The highest income was claimed in respect of Loong patri i. e. Rs. 3384/- The next lower claim was in respect of sale of trees i. e. Rs. 30855/36 np. A sum of Rs. 21045-12 np. was claimed in respect of Pala. For fish contract a sum of Rs. 5580/- was claimed. The claim in respect of bones was not allowed in the final award as no appeal has been filed against it by the Jagirdar nothing need be said about it. The amounts claimed in respect of other items e. g. skins, Gond etc. are very trifling as compared with those mentioned above and hence particular discussion about them would not be necessary. ;