DAYARAM & ORS. versus DAWALATSHAH & ORS.

Citation: [1971] 3 S.C.R. 324 · Decided: 08-01-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

324 
DAYARAM & ORS. 
v. 
DAWALATSHAH ?!< ORS. 
January 8, 1971 
[J. C. SHAH, C.J., K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahal•, 
Alienated Lands) Act 1 of 1951-,SS. 3, 14-S. 14 scope of-,Section 
on(v .. infenil~d to determine the Proprietary rights in lhe land qua the 
State-,-Dhanora-Zamindari-Succession by lineal primogeniture-'Neaf· 
4!st male relati,ve' does not mean eldest male re/aiive. 
Under the Chanda Patent and the terms recorded in the Wajibul-Arz 
the 'Dhanora Zamindari was impartible and on the death 
df the holder 
it devolved upon his eldest son and in the absence of a legitimate or an 
adopted son it devolved upon the nearest male relative. The succession 
to the· Zamindari was subject to the power of the Governor to dispossess 
a. person found unfi( to observe the conditions of loyalty, good police 
11dministration and improvement of the estate. The respondent instituted 
an action for possession of certain immovable properties including the 
zamindari and for recovery of compensation, in respect of ma/guzari 
land•, paid to the appellants in consequence of the enactment of the 
· Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights ·· (Estate, 
Mahals, 
Alienated Lands) Act, 1951. 
They claimed the Zamindari relying upon 
the rule of primogeniture and other estates as devisees under a Will. The 
trial court decreed the suit and the High Court affirtned the decree with 
o.light modifications. In the appeal to this Court the a~~ellants urged that 
(I) the Zamindari devolved on the death of the holder on the male re-
lative who is senior most in age and not the eldest member in the senior 
line; (2) by the order of the Governor the Zamindari was conferred upon 
the first appellant as he was fotind suitable to hold the zamindari and 
since the Governor had thC' power to det~rmine inheritance and the right 
to remove a person, the holder of the zamindari had merely a life interest; 
and (3) the compensation officer had decided by his order under s. 14 
-Of the Act that compensation in respect of malqutari land was. payable 
to the first appellant and since no suit was filed by the plaintiffs for set-
ting aside that decision within the period specified, the order of the com-
pensation officer bec•me final and conclusive. 
HELD : (I) By the 'JSO of the expression "the nearest male relative" 
the test of propinquity alone may be applied and when there are two or 
more claimants equally teJ110Ved from the common ancestor the eldest 
male member in the senior most line will be preferred. The contest bet-
ween the parties had to be adjudged in the light of the rules of lineal 
pdmogeniture governing an impartible estate. 
In determining a single 
heir according to the rules of primogeniture the class of heirs who would 
A 
B 
c 
D ,
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
DAYARAM v, DAWALATSHAH (Shah, C.J.) 
325 
be entitled to succeed the property if it were partible must be ascertained 
first, and then the single heir applying the special rule must be selected. 
By the expression "nearest male relative'' it was not intended to confd: 
the estate upon the eldest male relative of the Zamindar. The High Court 
was, therefore, right in holding that the Zamindari devolved upon the 
first respondent to the exclusion of the first appellant. [333 C-F] 
(2) The power vested in the Governdr to take extraordinary steps 
to protect the interest of tho zamindari by the removal of the,..bqlder did 
not restrict the title of the zamindar to a mere life interest. Tiie power 
had to be exercised in accordance with the custom of the famjly and an 
order by the Governor purf'orting to exercise powers under the Chanda 
Patent contemplated a quasi judicial inquiry. 
The order does not show 
that any lnquiry was made for determining the rights of the contesting 
claimants. [334 G] 
(3) Section 14 of Act 1 of 1951 does not invest the compensatioo 
officer with jurisdiction to determine competing claims of persons claim-
ing proprietary rights to the property vested in the Government by the 
operation of s. 3 of the Act. Section 14 is intended to determine only 
the proprietary rights in the land qua the State. (339 D-E] 
C1VIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2433 of 
1966. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated August 2, 1965 
of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in Appeal No. 113 ct. 
195 9 from original decree. 
V. S. Desai, v. N. Swamy, K. Rajendra Chaudhuri and K. 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.