- (1.) THIS appeal under sec. 7 of the Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act 1956, which has been wrongly designated as revision, has been filed against the order of the Addl. Collector, Jaipur dated 16. 7. 1960. The circumstances that give rise to this appeal may briefly be stated as below : - On 11. 6. 1959 one Gopal Sharma presented an application before the Additional Collector, Jaipur to the effect that a house situated in Chowkri Purani of Jaipur City bearing Municipal No. 2437/38 S. N. 19 belonged to one Deenanath Tiwari who died without leaving behind any heirs, that two ladies bearing the same name Shrimati Bhonri were in wrongful possession over the house, that the house belonged to the State Government by Escheat and hence it was prayed that the same should be attached and the ladies be restrained from alienating it in any manner. THIS application was forwarded by the Addl. Collector for an enquiry and report under sec. 4 of the Act to the Tehsildar, Jaipur. To appreciate the conduct of the informer Gopal Sharma, who has since died it would be necessary to refer to the proceedings conducted before the Tehsildar. The statements of the informer and his two witnesses were recorded by the Tehsildar on 30. 6. 1959 and thereafter a notification was issued inviting objections. Both the ladies, appellants before us, submitted their objections on 8. 8. 1959. Their counsel desired to cross-examine the informer and his witnesses and hence the case was adjourned to 31. 8. 1959. On this date the counsel for the informer was present but not the informer himself. One Shri Govind Sahai, who is a respondent before us also filed his claims with respect to the house. The case was adjourned to 30. 9. 59 and the counsel for the informer was instructed to produce the informer for cross-examination. The case was thereafter adjourned on 30. 9. 59, 22. 10. 59, 12. 11. 59, 8-12-59, 31-12-59 and 19. 1. 60 but the informer never appeared before the Tehsildar. Eventrually the Tehsildar submitted the papers to the Addl. Collector with the recommendation that as three claimants had appeared on the scene they should be required to have their respec-tive titles declared by a competent civil court. The Addl. Collector issued notices under sec. of the Act on 1. 2. 60. Appearance and obedience to it was put in by both the appellants and the respondent Govind Sahai. The informer d id not appear there and his counsel who could have no validity to act for him after his (Govind Sahai's) death continued to press his views. It was demanded by him that adequate security should be taken from the appellants for proper custody and management of the house. THIS found favour with the learned Addl. Collector who at one time thought fit to record the evidence that may be led by the claimants but eventually on 17. 1. 60 decided that as there were three claimants they should all be instructed to seek adjudication of their respective titles from a competent court. Hence this appeal.
(2.) NOTICES of this appeal were issued to the informer Gopal Sharma and it was reported by the process server that he had died. Thereupon his counsel Shri Vishandayal Nirmal was called to explain as to how he continued to appear on behalf of his deceased client. He has stated before us that he had no knowledge of the death of the client. He expressed regrets for his conduct and in view of it we do not propose to pursue this matter any further. The matter as it stands leaves no room to doubt that no evidence whatsoever has been led before the appellants to make out even a prima facie case against the house in dispute is without any heirs. The statements that were recorded by the Tehsildar prior to the appearance of the appellants tan the scene can hardly be of any legal validity against the appellants. It is indeed surprising that the learned Addl. Collector did not apply his mind at all to this aspect of the case. In fact he even went a step further than that. At one stage of the proceedings he had himself held that it was desirable to record the evidence that may be led by the the appellants. We may refer to the order sheet dated 7. 6. 60 wherein it was held that the parties may lead their documentary evidence. On 16. 7. 60 the appellants produced a number of documents-'khasara Pamais Abadi Shahar Smt, 1925', Assembly Electoral Roll 1951, Nakal Sajara, Matmi Sheo Shanker, Ganesh and two certified copies of judgments. The Addl. Collector has observed in his order under appeal that the appellants were permuted to produce documentary evidence alone to the exclusion of the oral evidence and yet has given no reasons whatsoever for ignoring completely this documentary evidence. We Lave ourselves examined these documents. In St. 1925 the house in dispute was recorded in the name of Sheo Narain S/o Sada Shiv, Ganesh s/o Sheo Shanker and Ram Narain s/o Har Shanker. On 4. 10. 1955 the Addl. Collector Jaipur had held that the possession of the appellants over the house in dispute was of long standing and that the house could not be deemed to be 'lavaris'. This decision was affirmed by the Board on 12. 5. 59 by a judgment to which one of us was a party. Thus the irresistible inference is that no evidence whatsoever has been led in the case to suggest, leaving aside positive proof, that the house is the 'lavaris' property. On the contrary it is abundantly clear that the appellants are living through their own right derived from their husbands in the house in dispute. A reference to the pedigree table of this family shows that Sheo Narain was a son of Sadasive and that Sadasive, Har Shanker and Sheo Shanker were brothers being the sons of one Chinanram. Govind Sahai is the great grand son of Har. Shanker and the appellants are the widows of two great grand sons of Sheo Shanker. The appellants and respondent Govind Sahai are living in the house. Thus the persons who are in possession of the house have a valid title to continue in possession of the same. We may refer to sec. 6 (5 of the Act ). It is mandatory duty of the Collector to obtain full information from the public records and by personal enquiries respecting any property to which this Act applies and reasonable care should always be taken in such cases as there may not be any un-necessary infrengement of a private right. Un-necessary trouble or vexation to individuals should be avoided on all occasions. In the present case the learned Addl. Collector followed this in breach rather than in observance. To conclude therefore we hold that the decision of the learned Additional Collector is clearly untenable. We allow this appeal, set aside the order of the learned Additional Collector dated 16. 7. 60 and direct that all the proceedings carried out on the application of the deceased Gopal Sharma dated 11. 6. 1959 shall stand quashed. .;