- (1.) THIS is an appeal against an appellate order of the Additional Commissioner, Udaipur, dated 18. 10. 54, in a case relating to escheat proceedings.
(2.) WE have heard the parties and have examined the record as well. WE feel no hesitation in observing that these proceedings have been kept alive for the last 16 years without any rhyme or reason. On 12. 7. 39 an application appears to have been received by post in the office of the Hakim Sahib Kacheri Khalsa, Udaipur, of the former Mewar State. The contents of this application were that Anooplal Humad wanted to bring to the notice of the Hakim that "humad nut gaye", Humad is the name of a community and not the name of any individual. The term 'nut gaye' is equivalent to "issueless death". It was alleged in the application that the shop in the possession of Abuji Rangrej deserves to be made khalsa on the ground that it belonged to those Humads who had died heirless. Anooplal, who appears to be the informer never appeared on the scene as yet and it is not known whether any such person actually (exists or not. As no parentage or residence of this Anooplal is given in the application and as no person answering to this name ever came forward in these proceedings during all these 16 years it can safely be presumed that this application was anonymous. Nevertheless Abuji Rangrej was examined in the case and he produced a mortgage deed of the shop which had been in his possession since Svt. 1932. The learned Collector in his cryptic decision held that the shop be auctioned and the mortgagee be given the mortgage money in case the mortgage was proved to be genuine. It is relevant to observe that the learned Collector did not care either to give the facts of the case in his order or the reasons* for his decision. Abu Rangrej appears to have died leaving behind his legal representative Manjur Ahamed, who went up in appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner. The order of the Collector was set aside. The learned Additional Commissioner felt that the material on record was not enough to give a final verdict and hence he directed further enquiry in the case. Manjur Ahamed has come up in appeal before us. We have no hesitation in agreeing with the appellant's counsel that there is absolutely no occasion as necessity for conducting any further enquiry. As laid-down in sec. 97 of (the Kanun Mal, Mewar, escheat proceedings can be started only when there is an allegation that some one has died heirless and that his property has been taken possession of by some one else in a manner unauthorised in law. Both these essential ingredients are clearly lacking in this case. There is no allegation that any specific individual died issueless leaving behind the property in question and if so when and under what circumstances. The only circumstance emerging out in the case is that Abuji Rangrej is in possession of a shop as a mortgagee extending over a period of more than 60 years. Unless some definite information is forthcoming on the point that the property is heirless it would not be proper to keep alive this enquiry in the vain hope that ultimately it may turn out that the Government is entitled to escheat it. Long and continuous possession, as has been proved to exist in the case, is a clear evidence of the title of the person in possession and unless something definite and tangible is shown to exist to the contrary it would be simply futile to continue this enquiry, We would therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the orders of the lower courts and direct that the escheat proceedings commenced on the application referred to above be dropped. .;