- (1.) THIS appeal has been filed against an order of the Addl. Collector, dated 18. 1. 56 in a lawarsi proceeding under the Jaipur Escheat of Property Act.
(2.) PUT briefly the facts of the case are that Rameshwar, the appellant filed an application on 26. 10. 51, alleging that Mst. Sundri died heirless. The Tehsildar, who made a preliminary enquiry in the matter, observed that the deceased left two daughters. Mst. Naraini, wife of Ramdhan the respondent, and Mst. Gulli. Accordingly, he proposed the lawarsi proceedings to be dropped and a muchalka of Rs. 51/- executed by the appellant be forfeited. The S. D. O. affirmed the aforesaid order of the Tehsildar and submitted the case to the Collector who, after hearing the parties also held that the deceased did not die heirless and the mukhbari filed by the appellant was not proved and therefore, the Muchalka executed by him deserved to be forfeited. Against this order Rameshwar has filed an appeal before us. We have heard him and the learned counsel for the opposite party. The contention of the appellant is that he reported the matter in the bona fide belief that the widow had died heirless without of course ascertaining that she had left two daughters. It was also urged that one of the daughters who is the wife of the respondent also died during the proceedings and that the other daughter who is alive did not press her claim and, therefore, he was led away with the impression that the deceased died heirless. This contention is without any force. In a lauarsi proceeding all that a revenue court has to see is whether the deceased left any heir or not In the case before us it has been admitted by the appellant that the deceased had two daughters. It was the duty of the appellant to have ascertained all these facts before filing this Mukhbari. The lower courts have rightly observed that the Mukhbari was not proved. As regards the forfeiture of the bond, we do not find any such provision in the Jaipur Escheat of Property Act which might authorise a revenue officer to take a muchalka and forfeit the same in the event of rejecting the mukhbari. The Board has taken a similar view in case No. 32 of Jaipur,1955, Govind Narain vs. State. In the result the appeal is partially accepted and the mukhbari proceedings be dropped and the order given for the for-feiture of bond is vacated. .;