This is an appeal against the final award granted by the Jagir Commissioner in the claim of Shri Rughunath Singh, Ex-Jagirdar of village Sayla, District Jalore. The Jagirdar claimed the following sources of income in his claim:– 1. Rent and revenue ... Rs. 16,393/2/9 2. Grazing fees ... Rs. 1,793/14/3 3. Non agricultural uses of land ... Rs. 3,875/12/- 4. Sale of land ... Rs. 1,195/ 6/9 Total Rs. 23,258/ 3/9 On the basis of the verification made by the Tehsil a provisional award in respect of rental income amounting to Rs. 14/835/3/- was issued in favour of the Jagirdar on 30th November, 1960. Objections to this were filed by the Jagirdar and he was, therefore, asked to submit his account books and other documents to substantiate his claim. After hearing the Jagirdar and keeping in view the evidence produced by him both oral and documentary, the Jagir Commissioner assessed the following incomes to the appellant:— Rent and Revenue ... Rs. 14,835/19 nP. Grazing fees ... Rs. 382/00 nP. Non agricultural uses of land ... Rs. 146/00 nP. Sales of land ... Rs. 181/03 nP. Total Rs. 15,544/19 nP. After deducting the tribute and the administrative charges the total amount of compensation was pitched at Rs. 1,12,716/12 nP. It is against all these incomes that the Jagirdar has come in appeal before us. We have heard Shri Lekhraj on behalf of the appellant and Shri P. D. Kudal on behalf of the State and Shri Chaturbhuj on behalf of Maji Ganesh Kanwar and have also gone through the record. The learned counsel for the appellant at the outset pointed out that the learned Jagir Commissioner had based his judgment not on a proper examination and discussion of the evidence adduced but on assumptions and even wrong interpretations, inferences and mistaken assessment of the evidence produced. He said this had happened because although the Jagir Commissioner heard the parties on 27.6.61 the judgment was announced some eight months later on 16.2.62 and the learned Jagir Commissioner had by the efflux of this long period lost sight of many of the arguments which had been advanced during" the hearing. It was also urged that no proper issues were framed by the Jagir Commissioner in determining the compensation claim. It was also urged that no proper issues were framed by the Jagir Commissioner in determining the compensation claim. It was further pointed out that the learned Jagir Commissioner had placed much reliance on the audit report which had no basis whatsoever as he was to be guided by the evidence before him and not on the opinion expressed by the auditors. On an examination of the record we find considerable force in these arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. We cannot but deplore the long period which has taken place in the jagir commissioner announcing his decision after he heard arguments as stated by the learned counsel. We also find that at various places the learned Jagir Commissioner has based his. decision on the report of the auditors which is entirely wrong as the auditors report is not part of the judicial document or evidence but purely one sided and should, therefore, not guide him in arriving at his finding in respect of the various incomes claimed. He should have first dealt with the case in accordance with R. 45 of the Land Reforms & Resumption of Jagir Rules wherein it is provided that all enquiries under the Act shall, unless otherwise specifically provided therein or in these rules be conducted (a) in contested cases in the manner provided by law for the trial of a suit in a revenue court. When the appellant had raised objections to the provisional award the matter comes within the scope of R. 45 quoted above and the learned Jagir Commissioner should have, therefore, dealt with the case as a suit in a revenue court struck the necessary issues, recorded the evidence of the parties and discussed such evidence and then given a finding in respect of each issue. It is clear that the learned Jagir Commissioner has ignored this fundamental provision of law but has dealt with the various claims advanced by the Jagirdar appellant under the different heads in a general manner. The auditors report cannot be treated as a piece of evidence since it is not recorded in a judicial manner and subjected to cross examination and, therefore, has no evidentiary value. The auditors report cannot be treated as a piece of evidence since it is not recorded in a judicial manner and subjected to cross examination and, therefore, has no evidentiary value. It may be a document which may be referred to by the learned Jagir Commissioner for his own purpose but cannot be imported into the decision which he may give or the discussion of the evidence produced. Therefore, we consider that the entire order of the learned Jagir Commissioner has been vitiated by the serious objections which have been allowed to enter in his order determining the compensation claim of the appellant. The learned Government counsel was helpless in defending the order under appeal. We shall now deal with the objections advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant under the different heads. Coming to the rental income the appellants counsel has nothing to say except that a sum of Rs.293.93 nP. was not included by the Jagir Commissioner in spite of the fact that the accrual of this income was proved by a copy of the certified Jamabandi in Smt. year 2011. This document has been exhibited as Ex. 1. The Jamabandi maintained was a Government record and was prepared by the Patwari. There was thus no reason. for the Jagir Commissioner to have disallowed the income accruing from villages Sayala and Biran. We feel that the Jagir Commissioner should not have refused the income merely on the fact that the Jagirdar did not maintain record of this amount on the prescribed form. There is no such order and the Jagirdars used to maintain their records not in any prescribed form but according to their own practice. When a true copy of the Government record has been produced it is sufficient proof that the income did accrue unless contrary is proved. The objection of the Jagir Commissioner that the revenue record maintained by the Jagirdar was not in accordance with the Land Records Manual is also clearly untenable as the Jagirdar was not bound to do so. He should have examined the Patwari for the purpose of satisfying himself whether the income did accrue as per record produced The Government Advocate also concedes this. This item, there- fore, requires to be re-determined, if necessary after examining the Patwari. He should have examined the Patwari for the purpose of satisfying himself whether the income did accrue as per record produced The Government Advocate also concedes this. This item, there- fore, requires to be re-determined, if necessary after examining the Patwari. The next point agitated in the appeal is with regard to the grazing fees for Smt. years 2008, 2009 and 2010 preceding the basic Smt. year 2010. The Jagirdar claimed an amount of Rs. 5,381/10/6 whereas the Jagir Commissioner has only allowed a sum of Rs. 382/-. The learned counsel argued at length the facts leading to the accrual of this income and we shall discuss them here in detail. It was contended that as per statement of the Jagirdar the actual income accrued was Rs. 5,381/- during the course of three years preceding the basic year and the average income that should have been allowed to the appellant was Rs. 1793/14/3. In support of this claim the Jagirdar examined himself on oath and produced as many as 20 witnesses and 14 documents. He also produced the cash book of the Thikana for Smt. years 2008 and 2010. Shri Mangilal is the scribe of the cash book and is said to have kept the record of Thikana. Out of the documents produced some are receipts obtained from Shakur Khan, Mod Singh, Buddha, Samela, Bhuria, Java, Rugha, Kishna, Hukma and Ali Khan. The Jagir Commissioner relying on the report of the auditors held that the cash books of the Jagirdar were not kept in the regular course of business and that they do not show the income accruing to the Jagirdar under the proper sources. Besides the expenditure details were not properly furnished and large sums of money were debited in the cash book in payment of the Jagirdar in respect of these years. He, therefore, allowed a sum of Rs. 385/14/- in respect of Smt. year 2008. Next is the sale of wood filled in column No. 7 under which the amount claimed is a lumpsum of Rs. 1734/- for which a single entry exists in this respect. We have not been impressed by the statement of the learned Jagir Commissioner in respect of evidence of Sangram to the effect that when he was cross examined by the legal adviser to the Government his credit was completely shaken. 1734/- for which a single entry exists in this respect. We have not been impressed by the statement of the learned Jagir Commissioner in respect of evidence of Sangram to the effect that when he was cross examined by the legal adviser to the Government his credit was completely shaken. No such inference or assessment can reasonably be gained on a careful examination of the evidence. At the same time the learned Jagir Commissioner has disallowed this income on the ground that this witness was not named in the cash book entry and therefore, he came to the finding that he was a tutored witness. We would, therefore, leave a determination in respect of this amount of Rs. 1734/- on the basis of the evidence produced. We have been much handicapped in examining the record as the learned Jagir Commissioner dealt with the matter on the basis of certain columns obviously drawn up by the auditors but as observed above the item should be examined under each head on the basis of evidence recorded. Another entry of Rs. 1895/- in column No.7 consists of two items (i) Rs. 565/-and (ii) 1830/-. The Jagir Commissioner has disallowed the income as the cash book entries did not mention the name and place from which this fuel was collected and the person who paid the amount. The statement of Shri Ismail Khan has not been relied upon in view of his cross examination. We have gone through the cross-examination of the witness and do not find that he failed to sustain the cross-examination or that his credit was "completely shaken". He has corroborated by Ex. P. 4 which is a receipt amounting to Rs. 565/-and has affirmed on oath that he had purchased this dry wood from the Jagirdar. In our opinion, therefore, when this amount finds entry in the cash book, bears a receipt (properly exhibited) and is also corroborated by the statement of the payee, there was hardly any reason to have disallowed the income. The Jagir Commissioner has nowhere mentioned that he does not rely upon the cash book in this behalf. The only plea raised by him is that the cash book did not mention the name of the place from where the fuel was collected. As against this we find that an entry has been made in the receipt naming the place from where this wood was removed. The only plea raised by him is that the cash book did not mention the name of the place from where the fuel was collected. As against this we find that an entry has been made in the receipt naming the place from where this wood was removed. We would, therefore, like that this aspect is once again examined by the learned Jagir Commissioner to ascertain whether the actual income did accrue. So far as he amount of Rs. 1330/-is concerned, we agree with the Jagir Commissioner because no witness has been produced to corroborate the same. This need not, therefore, be allowed. Coming to the next item, a sum of Rs. 954/- in respect of Smt. Year 2009 has been claimed vide column No. 8. Besides the cash book entries and printed receipts, one Shri Neka has appeared in evidence and the learned Jagir Commissioner has not relied on his statement merely because it was his uncle who paid this amount. From a reading of the statement we do not find that there is any mention about his uncle having taken the contract. On the contrary his statement is quite clear so far as this point is concerned. It reads as below. eSus la- 2009 esa ?kkl 954 esa fy;k Fkk] ghxyk yxk gqvk Fkk] ?kkl dVk gqvk FkkA ?kkl dqy 35 xkM+h Fkk] ?kkl tkM+s esa dVk gqvk Fkk jlhn isk djrk gwwa tks b- ,Dl 5 gSA From this it is evident that he has corroborated the receipt which is Ex. P. 5. Nowhere in cross-examination it has been stated that the grass was purchased by his uncle. Besides, the Jagir Commissioner has also mentioned that Neka is the resident of Jodhpur. This statement is also not supported by any fact. In his statement on oath Neka has admitted to be the resident of Jalore. Under such circumstances we feel that there is scope for re-consideration particularly in view of the variance in the statement of the witnesses as compared to the appreciation of the same in the judgment. Another amount of Rs. 1135/-towards the sale of grass in Smt. year 2010 claimed in column No. 8 has been disallowed on the ground that the witness Prabhu who is said to be the purchaser of this grass has foundered in his cross examination. The Jagir Commissioner has therefore, held him to be a tutored witness. Another amount of Rs. 1135/-towards the sale of grass in Smt. year 2010 claimed in column No. 8 has been disallowed on the ground that the witness Prabhu who is said to be the purchaser of this grass has foundered in his cross examination. The Jagir Commissioner has therefore, held him to be a tutored witness. We agree to this view of the Jagir Commissioner. The statement of this witness cannot be relied as he has mentioned that the grass was not purchased by him but by his uncle. His statement obviously is, therefore, properly judged as unreliable. As against this award the appellants counsel contended before us that the entire approach to the problem was wrong in as much as the Jagir Commissioner did not take into consideration the statements of the persons to whom lands were let out for grazing and the receipts obtained. He further argued that at the very outset the Jagir Commissioner misread the evidence produced on be behalf of the Jagirdar. In fact it was Chhaganraj (whose statement was recorded on 23.5.61) who was the scribe of the cash book in respect of St. year 2008 whereas the Jagir Commissioner has taken Mangilal to be its scribe. Mangilal has nowhere in his statement admitted to have made any entries in the cash books. He has only filled some of the receipts to which he had testified in his evidence. The Jagir Commissioner, therefore, misread the evidence as is clear from the following extract of his judgment:— "In addition to this, the Jagirdar has produced scribe of the cash book, Shri Mangilal who kept the record for St. years 2003, but he has not produced Hasti Mal who kept the Roker from St. years 2009 to 2010." On a careful examination of the statement as also the above extract we find that there is truth in this allegation. Shri Mangilal does not in his statement mention anything about the cash book. He has only mentioned that he filled the receipts No. Ex. 14, 15 and 16. years 2009 to 2010." On a careful examination of the statement as also the above extract we find that there is truth in this allegation. Shri Mangilal does not in his statement mention anything about the cash book. He has only mentioned that he filled the receipts No. Ex. 14, 15 and 16. His statement reads as below:– eSa lkfcd tkxhjnkj lk;yk Jh :?kukFkflag dks tkurk gwwa tks bl dukS oy gkftj vnkyr gS] eSa Bkdqj lkgc ds DokVZj esa Fkk] blfy;s Bkdqj lkgc tks dke crkrsa esa dj nsrk Fkk] iwjk ukek ugh djrk Fkk] nks jlhn cqd b- ,Dl 14]15]16 esa bckjr esjs gkFk dh fy[kh gqbZ gSA It is, therefore, abundantly clear that the learned Jagir Commissioner did not take into consideration the statement made by this witness and confused the same with that of Chhaganraj who is the actual scribe and who has in his statement admitted as such. As regards the income of St. year 2009 under the head grazing fees the Jagirdar has on the basis of his record claimed Rs. 3007/10/- out of which only a sum of 393/8 out of column) No.8 and Rs. 15/- out of column No.9 has been granted. The rest has been rejected on the ground that a lump sum amount was claimed to have been received by the Jagirdar from persons who came to graze their cattle. This income was disallowed on the ground that the whereabouts of the persons and the places where the cattle were made to graze were not given. This is a far fetched argument. It is not humanely possible nor can it be expected that the whereabouts of the persons and the places where the cattle were made to graze could all be recorded in the books of the Jagirdar. We have to take a practical view of the evidence in such matters and a finding could be reached which can reasonably be accepted on the evidence on record. As regards the income of Rs. 450/- accruing to the Jagirdar in St. year 2010 the statement of Shri Mod Singh is quite clear. He has stated that Rs. 450/- were realised by him froth persons who had brought bovines for grazing in St. 2010 and that this amount was recovered at the rate of Rs. As regards the income of Rs. 450/- accruing to the Jagirdar in St. year 2010 the statement of Shri Mod Singh is quite clear. He has stated that Rs. 450/- were realised by him froth persons who had brought bovines for grazing in St. 2010 and that this amount was recovered at the rate of Rs. 10/- per 100 heads from which it is clear that 4500 animals had grazd in this particular year. Proper receipts of the Thikana have also been produced in support of the claim. Besides, Shri Shakur Khan who is owner of these cattle heads has also come in evidence and admitted that he and Muhamed did pay Rs. 440/- to the Jagirdar for grazing his cattle about 8 years before. Similarly, in respect of the claim for St. year 2009 amounts to Rs. 790/- we find that the corresponding entry exists in Rokar of Smt. year 2009 and the amount is said to have been received by the Rebaries of village Belara and Sotri. Receipt Ex. 3 amounting to Rs. 790/- has also been exhibited and proved. These documents should have been reconciled with the statements and a mere assumption based on the report of the internal auditors should not have led to an abrupt decision that the Jagirdar could not prove his income therefrom. These incomes as also those accruing in St. year 2010 should be re-examined in view of the statements of the witnesses, the receipts obtained and the record maintained. In arriving at a decision in such matters the fundamental principle based on the evidentiary value of account books on a careful application of the principles of sec. 34 of the Evidence Act should be borne in mind. There are various rulings of the Board of Revenue dealing with the reliability of the account books of a Jagirdar and the matter has been exhaustively dealt with in appeal No. 2 of Nagour decided by the Board on 19.9.62 in the case Shri Udaisingh Vs. State of Rajasthan quoted in Rajasthan Revenue Law Journal dated 15.10.1962 pages 52-53. In our opinion so far as the income from the grazing fees is concerned there is sufficient record on the file which needs to be further examined in the light of the documents produced by the Jagirdar. State of Rajasthan quoted in Rajasthan Revenue Law Journal dated 15.10.1962 pages 52-53. In our opinion so far as the income from the grazing fees is concerned there is sufficient record on the file which needs to be further examined in the light of the documents produced by the Jagirdar. All these receipts which have been produced by the Jagirdar have been duly corroborated not only by the statements of the persons who paid the money but also by those who physically brought their cattle for purpose of grazing. We, therefore, feel that this issue should be examined once again in the light of what has been stated above. In this connection we concede to the valuable suggestion made by the Jagir Advocate that in deciding this issue the Jagir Commissioner will keep in mind whether this income accrued to the Jagirdar from occupied or unoccupied lands. If the lands were occupied and it was only during the stray season that the jagirdar let out his land for grazing, he would not be entitled to get anything out of it as it would mean accrual or double income. Income from non-agricultural uses of land—Under this head the Jagirdar claimed a sum of Rs. 11625/4/- for the three St. years 1.s. 2008 to 2010. Besides some oral witnesses, cash books were also produced. This income mainly consists of auction of lac, sale of Rohira trees, sale of fuel wood, sale of grass and contract for brick making. The jagirdar has claimed the following income:– 1. Contract of lac Rs. 635/- for Smt. 2009 and 2010 2. Sale of Rohira trees Rs. 440/- 3. Price of timber Rs. 1734/- 4. Price of grass Rs. 954/- 5. For brick making Rs. 556/ - & 634/- for Smt. 2009 and 2010. We shall now proceed to examine these items individually. So far as the contract of lac is concerned we find that no person has come forward to testify that the contract was given to him and that he paid the amount. During the course of arguments the counsel did not show us the statement of any witness and, therefore, merely to rely on the entries made in the cash book would in our opinion not be sufficient to grant this income. We, therefore, accept the stand taken by the Jagir Commissioner. During the course of arguments the counsel did not show us the statement of any witness and, therefore, merely to rely on the entries made in the cash book would in our opinion not be sufficient to grant this income. We, therefore, accept the stand taken by the Jagir Commissioner. So far as the sale of Rohira trees is concerned, the same has been allowed by the Jagirdar and as no objection was taken by the Government Advocate, we do not propose to disturb the finding given by the learned Jagir Commissioner. Sale of Land—Under this head the total claim made by the Jagirdar amounted to Rs. 21,908/7/3 for the sale of Abadi land as also the agricultural land from Smt. 1961 to Smt. 2010 i.e. 20 years preceding the basic year. From out of this total income the Jagir Commissioner has rightly rejected the claim in respect of the sale of cultur-able land which could not be given in view of the trend of the decisions taken by the Board of Revenue. So far as the income of the Abadi land is concerned, the amount of Rs. 853/-nas been allowed so also the two amounts of Rs. 1151/- and Rs. 350/-whereas the amount of Rs. 805/- has not been allowed. This amount has been disallowed because this has not been credited in the cash book of the Jagirdar and debited to the accounts of the purchaser. In Deepchands accounts no such credit entry has been mentioned or proved. We, therefore, uphold the view of the learned Jagir Commissioner. The rest of the items have largely been allowed except Item No. 6 appearing in column No. 6 claimed towards the sale of house to Shri Punamchand against a sum of Rs. 7701/- for which an entry in the cash book exists. Against this claim a sum of Rs. 5701/- has been refused because this was shown as a debit entry as a loan. The learned Jagir Commissioner, therefore, felt that only a sum of Rs, 2,000/- should be considered as admissible under this transaction. We agree with the Jagir Commissioner and do not find much substance in the argument of the learned counsel as no entries have been made about the accrual of the actual income. From out of the amount of Rs. The learned Jagir Commissioner, therefore, felt that only a sum of Rs, 2,000/- should be considered as admissible under this transaction. We agree with the Jagir Commissioner and do not find much substance in the argument of the learned counsel as no entries have been made about the accrual of the actual income. From out of the amount of Rs. 2,000/- the Jagir Commissioner in our opinion has rightly allowed the cost of the land calculated at 10% of the claim. Thus the amount of Rs. 200/-allowed is justified. Coming to the maintenance grant Shri Chatarbhuj on behalf of Maji Ganesh Kanwar has nothing to say and there is, therefore, no need to pass any order in this respect. To sum up we consider that the various items which have been challenged in the appeal and which we have left to be redetermined should be redetermined by the Jagir Commissioner keeping in view the principles and observations made above. We do not consider it necessary at this stage that the whole compensation claim should be redetermined de novo which will only cause delay. Items which have either not been challenged in appeal or which have been disallowed in appeal should be treated as finally determined and only such items which have been remanded for redetermination should be reexamined in the light of the evidence already on record. We, therefore, accept this appeal partially to the extent indicated under the various heads, remand the case back to the Jagir Commissioner with the direction that he will redetermine the items remanded, in accordance with the law keeping in view the observations made relating to such incomes, and then prepare the final award.