JAGANNADHADAS J.: - (1.) THE Judgment of the court was delivered by
(2.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment of a division bench of the High court of Hyderabad dated 12/8/1952, on leave granted by that court under Art. 133(1) of the Constitution on 8/10/1952. These proceedings 'arise out of a dispute between the late Raja Durga 'Reddys widow. Rani Lakshmayamma, and his daughter Rani Shankaramma, which commenced in or about the year 1930 and has been pending for over 25 years. Raja Durga Reddy died on 2/4/1900, possessed of properties including a Jagir Samashtanam, Papannapet. He left behind him surviving, his widow. Rani Lakshmayamma (the present 2nd appellant before us) then aged about' 16 years and a daughter, Rani Shankaramma (the 1st respondent before us) then aged about one year. On Raja Durga Reddy's death, management of his entire estate was taken over by the court of Wards under orders of the government. The supervision of the court of Wards was established by government Notifications published in the Hyderabad Gazette dated 21/5/1900, and 4/6/1900. THIS was followed by Virsat (succession) proceedings relating to the Jagir Papannapet Samasthanam which resulted in a Firman of the Nizam dated 29/5/1903, sanctioning the Virasat in favour of the daughter. Rani Shankaramma, the material portion of which is as follows: " * * * As regards succession, * * * it should be sanctioned in favour of Durga Reddy's daughter. The boy that may be born of his daughter will be recognised as entitled to the Samasthan after her, provided Durga Reddys daughter is married to a boy by the sanction of the government. Till Durga Reddy's daughter attains her age of discretion, his widow be regarded as the legal guardian of her daughter, but supervision over the revenue and expenditure of the Samasthan will be exercised by the court of Wards. The court of Wards will however have the power to allow the widow to take part in the management of the Samasthan when and to the extent it thinks fit". Six years later, Rani Shankaramma was married to one Venkata Pratap Reddy, the brother of Rani Lakshmayamma, with the sanction of the Nizam, by his Firman dated 15/10/1909. Rani Shankaramma attained majority in the year 1920. An application was made on her behalf on 22/1/1920, for release of the estate from the court of Wards. On that application, the Nizam issued a Firman dated 322 24/12/1920, continuing the supervision of the court of Wards, which runs as follows: "There is nothing in the Firman of his late Highness (presumably referring to the Firman of 1903) which would necessitate the release of the estate from the supervision of the court of Wards as a matter of course after the late Durga Reddy's daughter's attaining majority. Although the girl's age is now 21 years and she has been also married by sanction of government, as she had no issue, very recently it was necessary to remove from the estate such self-interested persons as Abdul Hai etc., it is not at all advisable to raise the supervision of the court of Wards from the estate in its present state. The supervision be allowed to continue. The case may be considered in future if Durga Reddy's daughter begets a son". THIS was again affirmed by a later Firman dated 9/11/1922, issued on a memorial by Rani Lakshmayamma for release of the estate in favour of her daughter who by then was about 24 years old. THIS Firman runs as follows: "So long as no son is born to the daughter of Durga Reddy, and he attains majority, the Samasthan cannot be released, in favour of a woman. The supervision of the court of Wards is to maintain as before. Therefore the orders issued prior to this by my deceased father in this connection point to the same effect. Hence the applicant be informed of my order and the proceedings be closed". It appears from the record that later on the question of handing over of all estates whose administration was being continuously kept by the court of Wards even after the respective wards attained majority was referred to a special Commission by a general Firman of the Nizam dated the 5/5/1927. The opinion of the Commission dated 17/4/1928, was that all the estates in which the minor had become a major including the Samasthan Papannapet should be released. Meanwhile, however, Venkata Pratap Reddy the husband of Rani Shankaramma died after a short illness on the 19-3-1928, leaving no issue. Thereupon the mother of Rani Shankaramma conveyed her desire that the Samasthan should, for the time being, be retained under the government supervision. Following on this, a Firman dated 6/8/1928, was issued by the Nizam as follows: "Durga Reddy's estate be, for the time being, retained according to custom under the supervision of the court". Thereafter the prospect of a son by the daughter having disappeared, both the ladies Rani Lakshmayamma and Rani Shankaramma, filed a joint application dated 22/7/1949. for taking a boy in adoption with the following prayer. "That for the sake of continuing of this old Samasthan, which the government has preserved and maintained for the last eight generations, through adopted sons, your Honour will be pleased to award permission for adoption in accordance with the provisions of Dharam Shaster, when a boy will be searched for and produced, so that the government may, after interview and selection, award sanction". It may be stated at this stage that according to the Atiyat law of Hyderabad (the special law relating to Crown Grants including Jagir Grants) the root of title is the grant of recognition by the Nizam. It appears further from the record and it is not disputed that any adoption, if it should be available for recognition by the Nizam in the matter of succession to Jagir property, is to be sanctioned by him at every stage, i.e.(l) permission to make adoption must be given to the intending adopter; (2) the selection of the boy has to be approved; (3) permission has to be granted for the performance of the adoption; and (4) the actual adoption; when duly performed, has to be recognised. It was in consonance with this practice that the above mentioned joint application was made. It was after this that differences arose between the two ladies, the mother and the daughter, which unfortunately appear to have assumed a great deal of irreconcilable acuteness and have continued up-to-date. In spite of suggestions from this court during the hearing that this long pending litigation might well be brought to a final termination by private settlement between the parties, it has unfortunately not been found possible for the parties or their counsel to avail themselves of this opportunity, even at this stage. Between the years 1929 to 1984 there was conflict between the two ladies as to who was to obtain the permission to adopt and as to whether the adoption made was to be recognised and confirmed by the Nizam. The relevant material of this period which has been placed before us is voluminous. In addition to the Firman of the Nizam it consists of petitions, counter-petitions, appeals, notes, opinions and recommendations of the various officers who had to deal with this matter, some supporting the case of one party and some of the other. Some of them contain either direct or incidental expression of views as to the nature of the right of Rani Shankaramma in the Jagir Papannapet Samasthan. and the nature of the 323 right that the boy to be adopted would have thereto. It is not necessary for the purposes of this case to go through all that material. It is enough to notice a few land-marks. The first step, in this stage, is the joint petition for permission to adopt, already mentioned above. After exchange of opinions from officer to officer on this application, a Firman was issued by the Nizam on 19-2-1931, as follows: "Lakshmayamma, the widow of the late Raja Durga Reddy be given permission to adopt". Thereupon Rani Lakshmayamma, with the help of a special committee nominated for the purpose, selected Ramachandra Reddy, the 1st appellant before us, who was then a young boy. She applied on 5/12/1981, for permission to adopt the said boy and to perform the ceremony of adoption. Rani Shankaramma came forward with an application dated 18/2/1932, contesting the right of her mother to make the adoption and requesting that the permission granted to he; may be revoked, and sanction be given to herself, to make the adoption on the ground that she was the Maashdar of the Jagir. Thereupon the Nizam directed by a Firman dated 13/7/1933, that the dispute between the mother and daughter as to who is to be entitled to adopt should be formally enquired into by the Atiyat (Crown Grants) department and their opinion forwarded to him. The Atiyat Committee reported in favour of the mother Rani Lakshmayamma in pursuance of its decision dated 4/1/1934. An application by Rani Shankaramma for review was also dismissed by the said committee on 14/2/1934. Before the matter reached the Nizam Rani Shankaramma presented a memorial to the Nizam as against the report of the Atiyat Committee. Taxing all this material into consideration the Nizam gave his final decision and issued his Firman dated 22/3/1934, as follows: "In this connection the opinion of the Nazim-e-Adyat is approved. Rani Lakshmayamma be given permission to adopt, the sanction for which has already been accorded by my order dated 19-2-1931. However, Rant Shankaramma, through the court of Wards, can independently obtain permission to adopt for the spiritual benefit of her husband, which will have no connection with the Atiyat Shahi (Crown Grant)". The formal adoption accordingly took place and Rani Lakshmayamma executed on 0-4-1934, a deed of adoption in favour of Ramachandra Reddy, the 1st appellant, who, as stated in the deed, was a boy of 12 years at the time. Proceedings thereafter followed for a formal recognition of this adoption by the Nizam, at which stage again there were petitions and counter-petitions. There was a regular enquiry by the Subedar Medak who took evidence, followed by an appeal to the Nazim Atiyat and a further appeal to the Executive council (Atiyat Appeals Branch). This ultimately resulted in a further Firman by the Nizam dated 26/5/1934, whereby the adoption of the 1st appellant Raroachandra Reddy, as regards Grown Grant Maash, was recognised in the following terms: 'The adoption of Ramachandra Reddy made by Rani Lakshmayamma after performing religious ceremonies is sanctioned as regards Grown Grant Maash on condition of payment of one year's income in accordance with the opinion of the Subhedar Medak and Committee Atiyat" The 1st appellant, Ramachandra Reddy, attained majority in 1947. We are directly concerned in this case only with the events subsequent to his attaining majority. But before passing on to those events it is desirable to allude briefly to the position of affairs up to that date. After the adoption was recognised in 1934, Rani Lakshmayamma made attempts to assert the rights of the adopted son by two applications. One was dated 21/4/1937, and asked for restarting of the succession enquiry to her deceased husband, Durga Reddy, and to release the estate In her favour (presumably as guardian of the minor adopted son). The other application was dated 12/6/1937, and requested that Inam enquiry into the Maash of late Raja Durga Reddy be started vis-a-vis the petitioners Rani Lakshmayamma and Ramachandra Reddy and the Muntaqabs be prepared in her name. This apparently had reference to certain earlier proceedings taken by the Revenue Department under which on 18/12/1927, the office of the Nazim Atiyat had issued a notification as follows: "It is hereby notified that Rani Shankaramma, daughter of Raja Durga Reddy, holder of Papannapet Samasthan of Medak Taluq, had applied for an Inam inquiry and restoration of grant in respect of Sovereign Grants situate In government and Jagir territory, (1), Pargana Haweli Medak, (2) Pargana Takmal, (3) Pargana Utiur, (4) Pargana Sirpur Patti of Medak district and (5) Pargana Aman Bole of Nalgunda district (a village-wise detailed statement of which is herewith enclosed with the notification). Therefore, whosoever has any plea for the grant claimed, could produce with the documents for objections within six months from the date of this Notification. Otherwise, the 324 Inam inquiry would be started against the claimant referred to above, and judgment be passed and Muntakab be formally issued with the restoration of the grant and no plea would then be entertained". It does not appear from the record what happened on this notification. It appears probable that the Muntakabs relating to these properties were issued in favour of Rani Shiankaramma. The application above mentioned dated 12/6/1937, by Rani Lakshmayamma and Ramachandra Reddy presumably related to the properties 'mentioned in this notification. On the objection filed by Rani Shankaramma, these matters were elaborately gone into by the Nazim Atiyat, who dismissed the claims by his judgment dated 20/10/1937. An appeal therefrom by Rani Lakshmayamma and Ramachandra Reddy was dealt with the Appeal Committee and was dismissed on 27/2/1938.
(3.) RANI Shankaramma was also making parallel attempts during this period 1934 to 1948) to obtain release of the estate from the court of Wards and kept up her agitation throughout. None of her attempts were successful. Two Firmans of this period throw light on the situation relating to the management at this date. The first was dated 24/11/1934, and was in the following terms: "In view of the facts detailed in the Arzdasht the opinion of the council is right that the estate should be under the supervision of the court of Wards in the presence of special circumstances. But the court of Wards will consult RANI Lakshmayamma in important matters pertaining to the adopted son and his interests". The second Firman was dated 22/4/1936, and was to the following effect. "Hence in my opinion the distribution of the items of the budget followed from a long time should continue as before. It is proper". The position thus till after the 1st appellant, Ramachandra Reddy, became a major was that notwithstanding the competing claims and attempts of RANI Shankaramma and Ramachandra Reddy to obtain actual possession of the property and of the Jagir from the court of Wards, the properties were not released and the administration of court of Wards was being indefinitely continued. The police action in Hyderabad took place in September, 1948. After its termination a series of legislative measures were enacted by the Military governor by virtue of power conferred on him by a Firman of the Nizam dated 20/9/1948. One of these measures is the Hyderabad (Abolition of Jagirs) Regulation, 1358F. (Regulation No. LXIX of 1358 F.) which came into force on 15/8/1949. By this Regulation, broadly speaking, all Jagir lands were incorporated into State lands as from the appointed day and the administration of all the Jagirs was to stand transferred to a Jagir Administrator to be appointed by the government (Ss. 5 and 6). From that date the Jagirdars or Hissedars or maintenance holders were only to get cash payments out of the net annual income of the Jagirs worked out in accordance with the provisions of that Regulation (S. 6). This was to be by way of interim maintenance allowance until commutation for Jagirs is determined (S. 14). It was specifically provided that if a Jagirdar or Hissedar dies, his share in the net income shall devolve in accordance with his personal law (S. 6 (8) ) abrogating thereby the previous law that the succession to the Jagir right depended entirely on the recognition or. Re-grant thereof by the Nizam. Such share however was not alienable without previous sanction of government (S. 6 (7) ). It was also provided that after the commencement of the Regulation no person shall be appointed to be, or be recognised as, a Jagirdar whether in succession to a deceased Jagirdar or otherwise (S. 4). Thus in effect the original Jagir tenure as such was abolished and under this Regulation a hereditary but inalienable personal right to receive a portion of the net income thereof by way of interim maintenance was substituted. This was followed a few months later by the Hyderabad Jagirs (Commutation) Regulation, 1.359 F. (Regulation No. XXV of 1359 F.) which became law on 25/1/1950. This provided for payment of compensation by way of the commuted value of the Jagir to be determined by the Jagir Administrator in accordance with certain provisions of the said Regulation. The share of the Jagirdar or the Hissedar in the commutation sum was specifically declared inalienable save with the previous sanction of the government. As a result of these two Regulations taken together, the Jagir holder was given the right to receive a commuted sum in lieu of his right to enjoy the Jagir under the previous law. Anticipating these statutory measures 'which presumably were in the offing from after the police action, the 1st appellant made two applications dated 24/3/1949, and 26/4/1949, to the Revenue Member of the State. The first of these recited the fact of his adoption to Raja Durga Reddy and recognition thereof by the Firman of the Nizam and mentioned the likelihood of compensation having 325 to be paid in the event of the proposal to take over the Jagirs and Samasthans in the State is finally decided upon and prayed "that such compensation as may be held to be payable to the holder of this Samasthan may be paid over to him and to him alone. In the event of the Samasthan still being under the court of Wards when the compensation falls to be paid then the said compensation may be paid into the court of Wards to the exclusive credit and benefit of the petitioner alone". The second application, while also reiterating his adoption and the recognition thereof, prayed "(a) that the Virasat of Raja Durga Reddy may be ordered to be sanctioned in his name, ana (b) that if it is proposed to release the estate, the same may be released in his name". In between these two applications Rani Shankaramma filed an application on 11/4/1949, to the revenue Member of the State narrating the previous history and slating that she, having attained majority long ago and being aged about 52 years by then and being capable of managing her estate, the estate may be released from the court of Wards and prayed that the Samasthan of Papannapet be released in her possession forthwith and all her properties, ancestral or purchased from the nucleus of her estate, be restored to her with accounts. The application of the 1st appellant, Ramachandra Reddy, dated 24/3/1949, for payment of compensation was endorsed over by the Revenue secretary to the Revenue Member with the following remark. "No action by court of Wards is necessary on this application. We are not competent to decide the question at issue. It will be decided by the Atiyat department". The Revenue Member rejected the application by endorsing "I agree. The applicant be informed accordingly" Thereupon on 22/6/1949, the appellant Rama Chandra Reddy filed a formal plaint in the court of Nazim, Atiyat, describing himself as the plaintiff and Rani Shankaramma as the defendant and mentioning his claim to the Virasat of the late Raja Durga Reddy. He therein referred to the two prior applications dated 24/3/1949, and 26/4/1949, and to the fact that the first of the applications was returned with the endorsement that he should approach the Atiyat Department, and stated that he was accordingly submitting that plaint and annexing copies of the previous applications along with it. His prayer was that the Virasat of the late Raja Durga Reddy be sanctioned in his name and that possession of the estate be granted to him. This application of the appellant dated 22/6/1949, was decided against him by the Nazim Atiyat on 1/2/1950, after hearing him. The following paragraph in his judgment is instructive. "The Firman of H. E. Highness is clear. Not only is the succession sanctioned in the name of Shankaramma absolutely, but it is also mentioned in the. sanction that after her the claims of any son born to her will also be considered. Shankaramma has at present no children nor can she get any children in future. Who will be entitled to succession after Shankaramma will be decided at the proper time. In particular, the succession proceedings to Durga Reddy cannot be initiated now because sanction has been accorded to it already by H. E'. Highness. No question of amendment to the Tak hat Virasat can arise because there is neither any mistake nor is it against sanction. Nor has any condition or restriction imposed in the sanction (sic). Succession to Shankaramma cannot be decided during the life time of Shankaramma. Therefore absolutely the petition does not lie under the provisions of any law or regulation. Proceedings may be closed". As against this decision Ramachandra Reddy filed two identical appeals on the same date, i.e., on 23/2/1950, one "to the Atiyat Committee" and the other "to the Revenue Minister, Atiyat-intezami", contesting the conclusion of the Nazim Atiyat. While these proceedings were thus being agitated from authority to authority by the appellant, Ramachandra Reddy, the petition tiled by Rani Shankaramma dated 11/4/1949, to the Revenue Member was reinforced by another application virtually for the same purposes to the Nazim, court of Wardson 22/11/1949. Both these were probably put up before the Revenue 'Board Member. He thereupon passed an order on 19-12-1949, "I would like to hear the parties. Fix a date". Subsequently, the question was taken up and the Board Member appears to have recommended the release of the estate in favour of Rani Shankaramma. The Revenue Member (of the government) endorsed thereon on the 13/03/1950, that he "agreed with the recommendation". Before however any such release actually took place it appears that on an application submitted by the senior Rani Laksnmayamma objecting to the release, the Revenue Member passed orders on 12/6/1950, 326 to call for both the parties and to fix a date for counsel's arguments. Thus by the early part of 1950 two matters came up for consideration, viz., (a) relating to an alleged amendment of the Virasat of the Jagir of late Raja Durga Reddy on the basis of two simultaneous appeals (1) to the Atiyat Committee, and (2) to the Revenue Minister, and (b) relating to the release of the estate by the court of Wards in favour of Rani Shankaramma. At some intermediate date, the Revenue Membership ceased and Revenue Minister came in his place by constitutional changes. The Revenue Minister accordingly took up both the matters together for consideration and passed an elaborate order dated 19-6-1951, the purport of which will be presently stated. It is this order of the Revenue Minister which was under challenge before the High court. The appeal which the 1st appellant, Ramachandra Reddy, filed to the Atiyat Committee on 23/2/1950, was rejected by it on 24/11/1950, by an order in which they noticed that the parties had already argued the matter, by then, before the Revenue Minister and "that in any case they had no jurisdiction and that the file accordingly be closed". The Revenue Minister after making his order, above mentioned, on 19-6-1951, submitted the file to the Chief Minister for his orders. Both parties appear to have submitted their written representations against this order to the Chief Minister and asked for an opportunity to be heard. It does not appear, however, that there was any hearing by the Chief Minister who passed an order on 4/10/1951, in the following terms: "Having perused the judgment of the Revenue Minister, and the representation made by Rani Shankaramma and Ramachandra Reddy, I see no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the Revenue Minister which are hereby confirmed". Thereupon Rani Shankaramma applied to the High court under Art. 226 of the Constitution for a writ to quash the order of the Revenue Minister on the ground that it was without jurisdiction and also for a writ of mandamus directing the government to release the estate in favour of the petitioner. The High court by its judgment and order dated 12/8/1952, quashed the Revenue Minister's order and directed the government to release the entire estate in favour of Rani Shankaramma. The present appeal is against this order of the High court. ;