THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus RAO MANOHAR SINGHJL

Citation: [1954] 1 S.C.R. 996 · Decided: 15-03-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

1954 
Srimati OramlitJ 
Sundari Dasi 
v. 
Sri Sri Iswar 
Gopal .7itu. 
Mukhtlj1a ]. 
1954 
March 15. 
996 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1954] 
Schedule 
properties, 
however, 
Oramba Sundari was 
the purchaser 
at 
the execution sale and whether or 
not the 
money 
for such purchase 
was paid by her 
husband becomes 
immaterial. 
This was not the pro-
perty 
purchased by the decreeholders and there 
is no 
proof of the decreeholders being 
in possession of the 
same either by themselves or through Oramba Sundari. 
In these circumstances, clause (c) of section 36(2) can-
not be attracted in favour of judgment-debtors 
so far 
as this property is concerned and the possession 
of it 
must 
remain 
with the appellant. We, therefore, allow 
the appeal 
in part and set aside the order for restora-
tion of possession made by the courts below in respect 
to the Ga Schedule property. 
The rest of the decision 
of the High Court will stand. 
We make no order as 
to costs of these appeals. 
A pp(a/ partly allo1ud. 
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
v. 
RAO MANOHAR SINGHJL 
[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C. J., MuKHJ'.RJEA, S. R. DAs, 
VIVIAN BosE and GHULAM HASAN JJ.] 
Constitution 
of India, art. 
14-Section 8-A of Rajasthan 
Ordinance XXV/l of 1948 as amended-Whether ultra vim the 
Const£tutiQn. 
Held, that s. 8-A inserted in Rajasthan Ordinance XXVII of 
1948 by s. 4 of Rajasthan Ordinance X of 1949 and as amended by 
s. 3 of Rajasthan Ordinance XV of 1949 is void under art. 14 of 
the Constitution. 
Frank f. Bowman v. Edward A. Lewis (101 U.S. 22; 25 Law. 
Ed. 989), Ramjilal v. Income Tax Officer, Mohindargarh ([1951] 
S.C.R. 127), The State of Punjab v. Ajaib Singh ([1953] S.C.R. 
254) and Thakur Madan Singh v. Collector of Sikar (Rajasthan 
Law Weekly, 1954, p. 1), referred to. 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE 
JuRismcnoN : 
Civil 
Appeal 
No. 143 of 1952. 
Appeal under article 132(1) 
of the Constitution 
of 
India 
from the Judgment and Order, dated 
the 
S.C.R. 
. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
997 ' 
11th December, 1951, of the High Court of Judicature, 
Rajasthan at Jodhpur 
in D. B. Civil Miscellaneous 
Case No. 1 of 1951. 
M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General 
for 
India and 
K. S. Hajela, Advocate-General of Rajasthan, (Porus 
A. Mehta, with them) for the appellant. 
N. C. Chatterjee and U. M. Trivedi (Jiwan 
Sinha 
Chandra and 
Ganpat .Rai, 
with 
them) 
for 
the 
respondent. 
1954. March 
15. 
The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
GHULAM HASAN J.-This appeal filed on a certifi-
cate granted by the High Court 
of Rajasthan under 
article 132(1) of the Constitution 
arises 
from the 
judgment and order of the said High Court (Wanchoo 
C.J. and Bapna J.) in a petition under article 226 of 
the Constitution, whereby the High Court held 
that 
section 
8-A 
inserted, in Rajasthan Ordinance 
No. 
XXVII of 1948 
by section 4 of 
Rajasthan Ordinance 
No. X of 1949, and the amendment to section 8-A by 
section 3 of Rajasthan Ordinance XV of 1949 are void 
under article 14 of the Constitution and issued a writ 
restrammg 
the 
State of 
Rajasthan from collecting 
rents from the tenants of lands comprising the J agir 
of Bedla held by the respondent. 
The respondent Rao Manohar Singhji is the owner 
of the Jagir of Bedla situate in the former State 
of 
Mewar, now included in the State of Rajasthan. 
The 
former State of Mewar was integrated in April, 1948, 
to -form what was known as the former United State 
of Rajasthan. 
In 
April and May, 1949, the latter 
State was amalgamated with the former States of 
Bikaner, Jaipur, Jaisalmer and Jodhpur and the former 
Union of Matsya to form the present United State of 
Rajasthan. Three Ordinances, No. XXVII of 1948 and 
Nos. 
X and XV of 1949, 
were issued by the former 
State of Rajasthan in connection with State 
Jagirs. 
The management of the Jagirs including the Jagir of 
Bedla was assumed by the former State of Rajasthan 
in virtue of the powers under these Ordinances. After 
the final formation of the State of Rajasthan in May, 
!954 
Till Stat• qf 
Rajas than 
v. 
Rao Manohar 
Singhji. 
195~ 
Tm Stale •f 
RajtJSlhan 
... 
Rao ManohM 
SU.ghji. 
Ghulam Hasan J. 
998 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[19541 
l949, the Ordinances remained in force in a part of 
the present 
area 
of Rajasthan 
with the result that 
while jagirs in a part of the area were managed by the 
State in that area, the J agirs in the rest of the State 
were left untouched and remained with the Jagirdars. 
On 4th January, 1951, the respondent filed a petit

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