- (1.) THIS revision application which has wrongly been styled as appeal has been filed against an order of the Additional Commissioner Jodhpur dated 15-10-54 in a case under the Marwar Patta Act.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Shri Laduram, Hanuman Dass and Shyam Dass who are brothers applied for a patta of a residential house at Nazir-ki-bavri, Jodhpur City. Laduram, however, prayed that a joint patta in the name of all three brothers should be given for the entire property. THE City Patta Office therefore ordered that a joint patta be given to all the three brothers. Hanuman Dass filed an objection against this order before the Patta Committee who upheld the order of the City Patta Officer. Hanuman Dass then went up in appeal against this order to the Additional Commissioner, Jodhpur, who holding that the Patta Committee is primarily concerned with the actual possession and not with anything else and that if some one comes forward with an objection that the property of which a patta is being desired forms part of a joint family property such objector should have some prima facie case to convince the Patta Committee that the property is joint allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the Patta Committee with the direction that they might ascertain by further enquiry the property of which Hanuman Dass is in sole and exclusive possession and may grant him patta separately. Laduram has now come in revision against that order before this Board. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case. It is admitted that all the three brothers, Laduram and Others, applied separately for a patta of the property in dispute. The first application was put up by Hanuman Dass in 1946 in which he prayed that the patta be issued for the entire property in his own name. Subsequently in 1941 Laduram applicant put up an application to the effect that the property in question belonged to all the three brothers and therefore a joint patta be issued in their name. In 1951 another application was put by Shyam Dass praying that he might be given a patta for his share in the property. The City Patta Officer and the Patta Committee however, holding that the partition was not proved ordered the issue of a joint patta in the name of all the parties which decision was set aside by the Additional Commissioner. Sec. 16 of the Marwar Patta Act clearly lays down that all disputes regarding the grant of a patta shall be decided on the basis of occupation and possession and that it is not the duty of the officer concerned to decide complicated questions of title under the guise of patta proceedings. It is only when it cannot definitely be proved which of the parties is in occupation or possession of the property that the officer concerned may decide the dispute by summary enquiry on the basis of title. In this case Laduram applicant alone alleged that the property was in the joint possession of all the three brothers whereas Hanuman Dass and Shyam Dass alleged that a partition had already taken place. As observed by the learned Additional Commissioner it is a matter to be enquired into in detail and it will be proper for the patta Committee to ascertain by an enquiry as to the property of which according to his allegation Hanuman Dass is in possession and to grant him a patta only for that portion of which he may be in actual possession. If any party may have any objection as to the title of Hanuman Dass over the property claimed by him or as to the prior claim by any of the three brothers, it is open to such person to seek a declaration in competent Civil Court and the Patta Committee shall of course be bound to issue a patta in accordance with that decision as laid down in sec. 16 of the Marwar Patta Act. In the result, I see no reason to interfere with the finding of the lower court. The revision is hereby rejected.;