- (1.) THIS revision, which has been wrongly designated as an appeal, has beed filed against an appellate order of the Additional Commissioner, Jodhpur, dated 30. 4. 55 in a case relating to grant of Patta.
(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the record as will. Put briefly the facts of the case are that the opposite party applied for grant of Patta of a strip of land 20. 12. 51 on the ground that then were in possession of the same and that is was their Pattashud land. On 15. 1. 52 the applicants filed at objection stating that the windows of their house overlooked the disputed land and on that ground the Patta should not be granted to the opposite party as it would lead to an interference with the enjoyment of their right of easement. The Patta Officer held an enquiry into the affair. Out of the four objectors two, namely Kania and Motia declared that they had not filed any objection and that the objection petition did not bear their signature. It was also found by the Patta Officer that the land in dispute was included in their Patta and Patta should be granted in favour of the opposite party. Before the Patta Committee the applicants took up entirely new attitude and objected to the grant of the Patta exclusively in favour of the opposite party on the ground that the original Patta contained the names of the ancestors of the opposite party jointly with ancestors of the objectors as will. This contention was accepted by the Patta Committee and the Patta was directed to be amended accordingly. The opposite party went up in appeal before the Additional Commissioner who accepted the same and granted a Patta exclusively in favour of the opposite party. Hence this revision by the objectors. It has been found as a fact by the Patta Officer and the Patta Committed that the land in dispute is the Pattashud land of the opposite party and this is a question of fact on which we would not like to go in this revision. The question was examined by the Sub-Overseer of the Jodhpur Municipality and on a comparison of the various measurements given in the Patta and as verified on the spot he came to the conclusion that the land in dispute was included in the original Patta. It has been argued before us that the applicants were not allowed to cross examine this Overseer or to lead any evidence on the point. The nature of the enquiry contemplated under the Marwar Patta Act is summary. It was open to the Patta Officer to satisfy himself with such enquiry as he considered necessary and it cannot be said that the enquiry which he conducted was inadequate for a proper determination of the point. It is significant to observe in this connection that out of the original Pattashud land five Pattas were obtained by the opposite party in their individual capacity from 1950 to 1953. The applicants never raised any objection during the proceedings carried out for the grant of these Pattas. It cannot be seriously suggested that if they had any claims upon the land by virtue of succession or inheritance they would have assumed complete silence and that too after a litigation between the parties wherein the applicants were disallowed to open their windows upon the disputed land on the ground that the land belonged to the opposite party. There may have been a joint family at the time of the original Patta (Smt. 1887) but there can be no presumption of all the descendants of those persons continuing their joint status even after the passage of one and a half century. As pointed out above, all the opposite party have obtained scparate Pattas for the land utilised by them for their separate residences. The land in dispute is their common passage and hence a Patta is required jointly. To hold that the conditions which prevailed in Svt. 1887 are obtaining at the present day in utter disregard of the facts which have been proved, would be simply absurd. The observations made by Lord Shaw in A. I. R. 1929, Privy Council 8, may be quoted here : "it is no doubt true that there is a presumption that a Hindu family continue joint, but the sound proposition has for many years been accepted that. "the strength of the presumption necessarily varies in every case The presumption of union is stronger in the case of brothers than in the case of cousins, and the further you go from the founder of the family the presumption becomes weaker and weaker. " X X X "when it appears from facts that through generations a property has been possessed in a certain single line, it can never be said that it lies upon that line to establish that it was dissociated generations ago from another line which appears on the scene as a claimant and propones no facts of jointness, such as living in the same home, sharing in food or worship,or quoad estate participating in the enjoyment or fruits thereof. To put in consequence of a stretch of a doctrine of on us, an unnatural and forced construction upon the actual facts of family life and development is not warranted either by the reason of the law of India. " Patta cases are to be decided on the basis of possession or occupation. It has been found as a fact by all the subordinate officers that the opposite party have been in exclusive possession of the land in dispute. Complicated questions of title are not to be gone into in such cases as they are within the exclusive jurisdiction of civil courts. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the learned Additional Commissioner came to a correct conclusion in the case. here is no substance in this revision which is hereby rejected. .;