LexTHAKORE SOBHAG SINGH versus THAKUR JAI SINGH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
THAKORE SOBHAG SINGH v. THAKUR JAi SINGH & ORS. January 31, 1968 [J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAM! AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.] Jaipur Matmi Rules, 1945-W/Je//Jer lun·e force of /c;n·-Adoption prior to pron1ulga1ion of Rule~ l\·itliour sanction of Ru/er-Validity. Board of Revenue, Rajas1han-Jurisdic1io11 10 decide q11es1io11.r of adop. tion and succession to jagirs in Jaipur State. A B The Board of Revenue, Rajasthan. 1,1,·i1hout recording a finding on the C factum of respondent's adoption to the last holder of the jagir, rejected his claim to be r~cogniscd as the adopted son, on rhc ground that, under the MaJ111i Rules, the adoprion, without lhc pr-evious sanct;on of the Ruler. could not be recognised for the purpose of determining succession to the jagir. Jn the writ petition filed by him, the High Court dealt with lhe dispute on merits and, holding (a) that the Jaipur Mar111i Rules had no statutory force bccau'!le rhc Ruler had not given his assent to them; (b) thar on lhe death of the last holder without any issue lhe jagir would v-.'5t 1) in the respondent if it "'as proved that he v1as adopted in accordance wilh the personal law of the las! 1agirdar; and (c) that rule 14(2) requir- ing the previous sanclion of the Government of the State to adopt is prospective and could have no applicatiori to ~n adoption made before th: Rules "'-ere promulgated, dircc:ed the Qoard to drcide the case in accord· ance with the law declared hv the High Courl. The Board hold that the respondent was proved to have been adopted by the las1 jagirdar and directed that he should be recognised as the jagii'dar. E In appeal 10 this Court. against the order of the Board er Revenue it was contended by the appellant. \\'J10 claimed to have a preferential riaht to !he jagir, that : ( 1) rhe Board ol Revenue had no jurisdiction 10 decide the dtsput-~ relaring to ado;Jtion as it Yi:as triable by a civil court, and (2) since the Jaipur MO/mi Rules (Validalion) Act, of 19&1, was passed after the judgment of the High Court, the Board was bound lo dis- pose of the matter in the light of the Rules. }' HELD : ( l) Under the Rajasthan Jagir Decisions and Proceedin~s (Validation) Act, 1955. the power to doal y,i1h and decide Jispules relal- ing to succession lo jagir·cstatcs '"a~ vested. in respect of procccdin~s pending at the date of the Act and instituted thercaf:-:!r, in the Revenue Courts. Therefore. the Board of Revenue ~·as competent to decide the question rrlating to the respondent's ad0ption. and its decision·· on--~ .the factum of adoption recorded on appreciation of evidenc·! ml.Jst be accepted. G 1852 D-E, H! (2) It was not open 10 !he appellant lo con'end !hat the righl of the respondenl. a> lhe adopted son, to th~ iagir had to he decided by 1he Roard on the basis of tl:c Mar111i Rules and not in accordance with the personal law of the last jagirdar. (a) Though the State legislature .,naclcd the Validation Acl, declaring that the Ma1mi Rules 'shall have and shall be deemed always 10 have had, ll .. the for~ of law and '>halt be treated as heing and as having been an exis- ting jagir law within the meaning of s. 2(d) of the Rajasthan Laod Re- forms and Resumplion of Jagirs Act. 1Q5T, norwilhslanding anyrhing • A B • c D E G H SOBHAG SINGH V. JAi SINGH (Shah, J,) 849 contained in any Judgment of any court, the Act did not supersede the judgment of tho High Court and therefore, the Board wa·s incompetent to consider and decide the question .whether the Government mav. in the absence of its previous sanC'tion, refuse to recognise the adoption of the respondent on the basis of the Matmi Rules. [854 A-CJ (b) Acco<ding to the personal Jaw applicable to the last jagirdar, the respondent could have bee" adopted by him and the finding of the High Court that the jagir would ve~t in the respondent as the adopted son in accordance with such persl)!}al Jaw operated as res judicata and could not be reopened before the Board of Revenue; and, it was not open to the appeJlant to contend in the appeal to this Court that the deCision of the High Court on qu·estions decided in the writ petition was erroneous. The order of the High Court on the writ petition was not an interlocutory order. [854 E-G] (c) Rule 14(2) is on its terms prospective and the Validation Act Joes not give retro~pective operation to the Matmi Rules. [853 FJ (d) It could not be contended that the judgm
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.