LexTHAKUR BRIJ RAJ SINGH AND ANOTHER versus THAKUR LAXMAN SINGH AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
616
SUPREME COCRT REPORTS
[1961]
THAKUR BRIJ RAJ SINGH AND A:\OTHEH
v.
THAKUR LAXMAN' SINGH A~D ANOTHER
(S. K. DAS, M. HIDAYATULLAH, K. c. DAS GUPTA,
J.C. SHAH and N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.)
Maintainability of suit-Jstimrari estate-·Adoptirm by widow
-Suit challenging fact11m and validity of adoption-Enactment
providing for confirmation of adoption by Central Government and
canditional right of suit-Bar of suil-Ajmer land and Revenue
Regulation. i877 (Regulation I I of i877), ss. 23, 24, I r9.
After the death of B, the holder of an istimrari estate, on
September 28, 1947, leaving no male issue, the Court of Ward~
took over the estate and issued a notice under the provisions of
!ht> Ajmer Land and Revenue Regulation, 1877, inviting claims
to the estate. While the enquiry was pending, an application
was filed to the effect that the appellant was adopted on Febru-
ary 24, 1948. by the widow of ll and that steps should be taken
for the confirmation of the adoption u.nder the third pro,·iso to
s. 23 of the Regulation.
On September 10, 1951, the adoption
was confirmed by the President of India. Thereupon the first
respondent instituted a suit for a declaration, inter alia, that
the appellant was not adopted as a fact and, in the alternative,
the adoption was invalid and illegal. The appellant in his
defence pleaded that after the confirmation of the adoption by
the Central Government, which must be deemed to have consi-
dered and decided the factum and legality of the adoption, such
questions could not be challe~ged in a civil court in view of
s. n9, read with s. 23, of the Regulation and that, therefore,
the suit was not maintainable.
Held, (S. K. Das, J .. dissenting). (1) that though under s. 23
of the Ajmer Land and Revenue Regulation, 1877, an adoption
made by a widow is not deemed valid until confirmed by the
Central Government, such confirmation cannot confer validity
on the adoption if it be otherwise invalid under the general
law; and (2) that under s. n9(1) of the Regulation the only
thing done, ordered or decided by the Central Government
which cannot be irripeached, is the confirmation, but the decision
to grant confirmation does not imply an ouster of the jurisdic-
tion of the civil courts to examine the facts and acts of the
the parties, which preceded the proceedings for confirmation.
Accordingly, the present suit brought in the civil court
seeking relief not with reference to the confirmation but-for a
declaration that the adoption is invalid, is not barred under
ss. 23 and II9 of the Regulation.
Per S. K. Das, ].-The confirmation referred to in the third
proviso to s. 23 of the R~gulation necessarily. involves a deter-
mination of two facts, viz., {a) whether the widow has power to
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
617
z960
adopt, and (b) whether she has in fact adopted a son to the late
istimrardar, as otherwise, divorced from these two facts, the
..
.
confirmation has no meaning and no' intelligible content. Since Thakur Bri; Ra1
under s. II9 no suit lies to obtain a decision contrary to the Singh & Another
order of confirmation, on a proper construction of ss. 23 and II9 ·
v.
of the Regulation, the present suit is barred.
Thakur Lax"'an
s~·ngh 6' Another
CIVIL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Ci vii Appeal
No. 8/1955.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and
decree dated January 7, 1!154, of the former Judicial
Commissioner's Court, Ajmer, in Civil First Appeal
. No. 28 of 1953.
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, J. B. Dadachanji, Rame-
shwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the appellants.
B. Sen and I. N. Shroff, for the respondents.
1960. September 8. The Judgment of M. Hida-
yatullah, K. C. Das Gupta, J. C. Shah and N.
Rajagopala Ayyangar, JJ.,
was
delivered by
Hidayatullah, J.
S. K. Das, J., delivered a separate
Judgment.
HmAYATULLAH J.-This appeal, with the special Hidayatullah J.
leave of this Court, is against the judgment dated
January 7, 1954, of the Judicial Commissioner of
Ajmer in Civil First Appeal No. 28 of 1953, by which
the judgment of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Ajmer,
dismissing the-suit of the first respondent was revers-
ed.
The facts of the case are as follows : One Thakur
Banspradip Singh was the Istimrardar of Sawar. He
died on September 28, _ 1947, leaving no male issue
either by birth or by adoption. After his death, the
Court of Wards took over the estate, and a notice
under s. 24 of the Ajmer Land and RevenuExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.