The Commissioner-Jodhpur Division has submitted this case to the Board with the recommendation that as Th. Sawai Singh the last holder of the Scheduled Jagir of Jesawas died issueless, the estate may be realised in favour of Mod Singh Jagirdar of Mandawla. In order to appreciate the facts of this case, the relevant portion of the genealogical table may be reproduced below : Jagramot Raghunath Singh Svt. 1830 (Mandawla) Partap Singh Svt. 1861 Jait Singh Svt. 1874 Guman Singh Svt. 1890 Sardul SinghSvt. 1902 Khuman Singh Svt. 1948 Anar Singh Babhoot Singh Svt. 1905 Chain Singh Svt. 1972 Khangar Singh Prem Singh Tej Singh Svt. 1921 Gulab Singh Svt. 1974 Ajeet Singh(Died as Kanwar) Narpat Singh Mod Singh(Claimant) Khangar Singh Svt. 1978 Sawai Singh (Deceased) Nar Singh 4 years Narpat Singh 2 years 2. The fact that Sawai Singh died issueless is admitted on all hands. The Mod Singh the present Thakur of Mandawla claims the Jagir of Jaiswas on the ground that it was carved out of the parent Thikana of Mandawla and the deceased Th Sawai Singh was only a sub-proprietor and since he died without leaving any issue it should revert to its superior landlord namely Thikana Mandawla under sec. 173 of the Mar-war Land Revenue Act, 1949. The widow of the deceased Sawai Singh contested it on the ground that Thikana Jaisawas was an independent grant made by the Ruler in Svt. 1902 to Sardul Singh an ancestor of the deceased and was neither a sub-grant nor the deceased was a sub-proprietor of the same. She therefore prayed that in case the estate was not to be released in her favour it might be resumed and a suitable maintenance allowance be granted to her and the mother of the deceased. The learned Collector Jalore held necessary enquiries. He observed that from a perusal of the Khayalgat of village Jaisawas it was clear that this village was at first granted in Jagir to Jait Singh Pratap Singh, Raghunath Singh of Mandawla family in 1860 who was a common ancestor of the present Jagirdar of Mandawla and the deceased husband of the widow. Subsequently, for a short while the Jagir of Mandawla was resumed and it was restored to Pratap Singh. On his death in 1874 Jait Singh succeeded to the Jagir Mandawla which then included village Jaiswas also. Subsequently, for a short while the Jagir of Mandawla was resumed and it was restored to Pratap Singh. On his death in 1874 Jait Singh succeeded to the Jagir Mandawla which then included village Jaiswas also. This Jait Singh was succeeded by his son Guman Singh in 1890 who gave this village to his youngest brother Sardul Singh in Svt. 1902. In the Khayalgat which is on the file, this village is recorded as having been granted by the then Ruler to Sadrul Singh in Svt. 1902. On the basis of these facts, the learned Collector was of the opinion that as this village was originally included in the Jagir of Mandawla, its subsequent grant to one of the Chhutbhaiyas by Guman Singh was only in the nature of a sub-grant and did not confer any rights of a proprietor on Sardul Singh or his descendants. In his opinion, therefore, the Jagir village of Jaisawas was only an estate of the main Thikana of Mandawla and in the absence of any heir of the deceased it should revert to Thikana Mandawla who was the superior landlord. He, therefore, recommended accordingly. As regards the claim of the widow, he proposed a cash maintenance allowance of one hundred rupees per month for herself and 50/- per month for the widowed mother of Sawai-Singh. The learned Commissioner agreed with the above proposal and submitted the case for sanction to the Board. 3. We have examined the record of the case and heard the counsel appearing for the parties. The main point on which the decision in this case hinges is whether the Jagir village of Jaisawas was a sub-grant of Thikana Mandawla or it was a separate grant made to the ancestors of the last holder. The learned counsel for the Thikana frankly conceded that all Govt. dues in the form of rekhchakri etc. in respect of the Jagir village of Jaisawas were paid directly by the original grantee namely Sardul Singh and his successors upto the death of Sawai Singh the last holder. He also admits that this Jagir village although it had once formed the part of jagirs of Thikana Mandawla was granted by Guman Singh to his youngest brother Sardul Singh and that subsequently a fresh Patta was also issued in the name of Sardul Singh by the then Ruler of the State sometime in 902. He also admits that this Jagir village although it had once formed the part of jagirs of Thikana Mandawla was granted by Guman Singh to his youngest brother Sardul Singh and that subsequently a fresh Patta was also issued in the name of Sardul Singh by the then Ruler of the State sometime in 902. His only contention is that even if a Patta was granted for this Jagir village it continued to remain as a part and parcel of the parent estate held by Thikana Mandawla. In support of this contention he has referred to the entries in Khayalgat and also relied on unreported reports of the former Chief Court of Jodhpur State of 1915, submitted to then Govt. of Jodhpur in similar two cases. In so for as the entries in Khayalgat are concerned, we find that in Svt. 1900 this village was recorded as jabt and Svt. 1902 it was granted to Sardul Singh whose name appears as a Jagirdar in Column I. Nothing is mentioned in this Khayalgat as to whether this grant was to be considered as a sub-grant or a part and parcel of the estate held by Thikana Mandawla. These entries, therefore do not help the applicant. Are regards the opinion of the Former Chief Court of Jodhpur, suffice to say that this has no legal value now as the entire law of succession etc. has since been complied and enacted in Marwar Land Revenue Act, 1945. In the disposal of the case before us we can only be guided by the provisions of this Act and not by any decision given prior to the promulgation of this Act under any rules or notification etc. which then existed and are now inconsistent with the provisions of this Act. Under the circumstances the only relevant section under which succession to the estate left by Sawai Singh will be governed is sec. 176 of the Act. Sec. 176 lays down :— "No person shall be entitled to succeed to a grant as heir whether by adoption or otherwise :— (a) If he is not a natural lineal descendant in the male line of the original grantee........." The applicant is not contesting his claim as a natural lineal descendant in the main line of the original grantee. He is basing his claim under the provisions of sec. He is basing his claim under the provisions of sec. 173 of the Act on the ground as the last holder was a sub-proprietor and there was no person entitled to succeed him, the estate should revert to the applicant as a superior landlord. As already stated above, the applicant has not at all been able to prove that the deceased or the ancestor were his sub grantees. On the other band the fact that a separate Patta was issued in Svt. 1902 in favour of Sardul Singh the ancestor of the last holder and that Shri Sardul Singh and all his descendant succeeded the estate of Jaisawas and continued to pay rekhchakri etc. independent of the Thikana of Mandawla and further as the entries in Khayalgat were made to this effect it is clear beyond doubt that the estate of Thikana Jaisawas even if it was once carved out of Thikana Mandawla enjoyed the status of an independent grant to all intents and purposes. The learned Collector with whom the Commissioner also agreed was therefore incorrect in holding that the deceased being a sub proprietor his estate should revert to Thikana Mandawla as a superior landlord within the meaning of sec. 173 of the Act. It is important to note in this connection that in the list of scheduled jagirs given in the first schedule at page 62-63 of the Acts villages Jaisawas and Mandawla have been shown as separate jagirs. This also confirms our finding that this estate was independent of the estate of Madawla. Both the courts below failed to appreciate this point also. In the circumstances, we hold that as Sawai Singh died without leaving a person entitled to succeed him, the estate should be resumed. The learned Collector, and the Commissioner have also fixed a maintenance allowance to be given to the widow presumably under sec. 174 of the Act. We would refrain to give any order as to the quantum of maintenance allowance a» it has not been contested before us, by any party. In fixing the allowance, however, the lower court should see the rules in this behalf and fix such maintenance allowance for both the widows as may be admissible thereunder. The result is that the proposal made by the Commissioner is rejected and the estate of Jaisawas is ordered to be resumed.