MANNALAL Vs. RAMESHWAR
LAWS(RAJ)-1952-5-17
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on May 31,1952

MANNALAL Appellant
VERSUS
RAMESHWAR Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

JUBAR MAL VS. STATE [LAWS(RAJ)-1954-8-5] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

K.S. Ranawat - (1.)THIS is a revision application by the plaintiff applicant Manna Lal against the order dated 15.6.51 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Kotah in second appeal.
(2.)THE facts of the case, in brief, are that one Gopilal had 2 bighas 6 biswas of Muafi and 228 bighas and 11 biswas of Khatedari land in three villages, Kanwarpura, Kanedpura and Deopura. On his death all these holdings were mutated in his wife Mst. Kasturi's name. Mst. Kasturi adopted one Rameshwar as her son and got the adoption deed registered on 30.1.1940. THE applicant filed a suit for the cancellation of this adoption deed but his suit was dismissed on 27.1.44 and the holding in village Kanwarpura in Mst. Kasturi's name was mutated in the name of Mst. Kasturi and Rameshwar vide intkal case No. 442 on 27-646. THE mutations of the holdings in other villages Ummedpura and Deopura could not be made in the name of Rameshwar as they were contested by the applicant. On the death of Mst. Kasturi on 27.6.47 the applicant, on the basis of his being the nearest reversioner of the deceased Gopilal, the last owner of the holding in question, applied that all the Khatas in Mst. Kasturi's name be mutated in his name, as Mst. Kasturi inherited property from a male, therefore it will devolve upon her death to the nearest reversioner of the last male holder of the holding. THE Nazim and the Collector gave decree in favour of the applicant but in second appeal this judgment was upset by the Additional Commissioner, It is against this decision that this application in revision has been filed.
The counsel for the parties was heard at length. It has been contended on behalf of the counsel for the applicant that according to sec. 42 of Circular No. III of the Covenanting Kotah State the cases of succession should be decided by the Revenue Court and thus the judgment given in this case by Civil Court regarding cancellation of adoption deed is a nullity. On the other hand the counsel for the non-applicant had made reference to the order of the Revenue Commissioner of the said State dated 9.9.46 that complicated cases of succession may be tried by suits and therefore Civil Court was justified in passing their order and the judgment was justified.

I have carefully gone through the arguments of the counsel for the parties. The whole case melts down to the point whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to give judgment in the case in question and whether it is binding on the Revenue Courts to respect it. The Additional Commissioner has dwelt at length on this point, but it still requires further elucidation. Hence I would remark that Circular No. HI of the covenanting Kotah State deals with cases of succession of the tenant but there is no chapter for adoption neither in this Circular nor in others of that State. Thus the natural conclusion is that adoption is not the subject matter of revenue jurisdiction. Further, sec. 46 of the said Circular No. 3 of the order of succession. In its Ist sub-clause son has been placed number one successor. There is a bracket after the word 'son' and in that bracket the words "or adopted son has been entered. This clearly means that in the absence of a natural son if a khatedar adopts a person as his son, he shall take precedence over all other claimants named in that section. But as has been remarked above that the revenue circular is silent as to the proceedings about adoption, hence it shall be presumed that adoption is the subject of Civil Courts, according to the revenue circulars of the covenanting Kotah State, and the same view has been held in the Revenue Procedure and Jurisdiction Act No. 1 of 1951. There is no chapter on adoption in this Act also. Therefore if there is a judgment of competent Civil Court on adoption between the parties, it is on the Revenue Courts. The Revenue Courts have no jurisdiction to criticise it or pass remarks thereon however perverse a finding on facts or law may be therein. In the present case, Rameshwar was adopted as son by Mst. Kasturi, the adoption deed was registered on 30.1.40. A suit for cancellation of this adoption deed by the plaintiff applicant was dismissed on 27.7.44 by the Munsiff-cum-Naib Nazim Digod and no appeal was preferred by the applicant against this decision. Hence it shall be held that this decision is final, and no mutation proceedings can be entertained in contravention to this decision. Under the circumstances I see no reason to upset the judgment passed by the lower court. The application is, therefore rejected.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.