- (1.) THIS second appeal arises out of an appellate order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Jaipur, dated 8. 3. 1954 in a case relating to entries in the parcha chakbandi.
(2.) WE have heard the parties and have gone through the record as well. In view of the order that we are making in the case it is unnecessary to discuss the merits at this stage. Suffice to observe that both the lower courts have decided the case on the ground that the objections raised by the respondent are governed by sec. 157 of the Jaipur State Grants Land Tenures Act, 1947. Sec. 157 lays down that if the khud-kasht holder is a person belonging to the one of the classes mentioned in sec. 22 of Jaipur Tenancy Act khud-kasht let to a tenant who was admitted to his tenancy by such person shall be deemed not to be let for the purpose of extinction of khud kasht rights. The lower courts have unfortunately foiled to appreciate that before the provisions of sec. 157 can be invoked the land must be khud kasht land. The term khud kasht land has been defined in sec. 152 as follows : (a) Land which was being cultivated at the commencement of this Act, or may be cultivated at any time thereafter, by an estate-holder as such either himself or his servants or by hired labour, or (b) Land which was declared prior to the commencement of this Act, or may hereafter, on application or otherwise, be declared by the Government, in accordance with the provisions contained in the First Schedule to this Act, khud kasht of estate-holder. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has frankly conceded before us that there is no evidence on record to show that the land in dispute is khud kasht within the meaning of the aforesaid definition; that as no specific issue was raised on the point no evidence was led by his client. Similarly the learned counsel for the appellant stated before us that he was not afforted opportunity to produce his documentary evidence in respect of his long and continuous possession. He wanted permission to produce some documents, before us. We, therefore, feel that the material on record is inadequate to justify a final decision on the points involved therein. We would, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the orders of the lower courts and remand the case to the court of the first instance with the direction that the parties be allowed fresh opportunity to adduce evidence in the light of the observations made above and the case be decided afresh there-after. .;