- (1.) THIS, revision which has been wrongfully described as an appeal arises out of mutation proceedings started upon the application of Ishwar Dutta before the Tehsildar Behror.
(2.) WE have heard the parties and have examined the record. Looking to the order that we are passing in this case it is not necessary to examine the merits at length. Suffice to observe that Ishwar Dutta, the recorded proprietor of one-fourth share in the Khewats in dispute, applied for mutation of his share in favour of a Trust alleged to have been created by him for the maintenance and upkeep of a Dharamshala. The creation of the Trust was evidenced by a registered-deed. The learned Tehsildar rejected the mutation on the ground that the income of the land was inadequate for the maintenance of the Dharamshala, that the land was ancestral property ; that the creation of the Trust would adversely affect the interest of the other co-parceners , that some of the Trustees were not willing to serve on the Trust ; and that all the Trustees were not present before him. An appeal was tiled against this order before the Additional Collector, Alwar, which too was rejected by him on 28. 9. 56, hence this revision. In accordance with the provision of section 26 of the of the Alwar State Revenue Code mutations were carried out in accordance with the facts alleged or proved to have occurred. These provisions correspond to those those contained in the Punjab Land Revenue Act. Upon the enforcement of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act on 1. 7. 56 mutations in annual registers are to be covered by the provisions contained in sections 132 to 137 of the Act. As laid down in sec. 136 disputes are to be decided in accordance with the provisions of sec. 123, or 124 or 125 as the case may be. Sec. 123 deals with the determination of class of tenants. Sec 124 deals with cases where the dispute relates to the payable rent for revenue. Sec. 125 is the residuary section and deals with all other types of disputes and they are to be decided on the basis of possession. The judgments of the lower courts make it clear that all other aspects of the case were examined except the basis of possession. The Tehsildar should have examined the recitals in the registered-deed as regards the transfer of possession and if he was satisfied that possession had in fact changed hands he should have sanctioned the mutation. If on the contrary he come to the conclusion that the possession did not so change hands he ought to have rejected the mutation. In other words, the criteria upon which the mutation should have been decided was only possession and this is the factor which has not been examined in the case as yet. We, therefore, allow this revision, set aside the order of the lower courts and remand the case back to the Tehsildar Behror for further enquiry. and decision afresh in the light of the observations made above. .;