Narayan, J. - (1.) THIS is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from a decision of this Court in Misc. Judicial Case No. 79 of 1951 which arose out of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is the son of the late Maharaja Bahadur Guru Mahadvashram Prasad Sahi who was the last holder of the impartible estate commonly and compendiously known as the Hathwa Raj. On the 4th May, 1940, the late Maharaja Bahadur had made an application under section 6 (e) of the Court of Wards Act for being declared a disqualified proprietor, and on the 11th of May, 1940, the Court of Wards made a declaration that the Maharaja Bahadur was a disqualified proprietor, and on the same date a notification was issued that the Court of Wards had decided to take charge of the property of the late Maharaja Bahadur, and a direction was made that possession be taken. The present petitioner who is the eldest son of the late Maharaja Bahadur and his brother Brajeshwar Prasad Sahi were admittedly minors when the estate was taken by the Court of Wards. Acting under section 7 of the Act the Court of Wards purported to take charge of the person and the property of the two minor sons of the Maharaja Bahadur. The Maharaja Bahadur died on the 20th of January, 1951, and after his death the petitioner made an application to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, and his prayer was that a writ in the nature of mandamus or a direction or order be issued upon the Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna, to withdraw from the management of the estate and to forbear from retaining charge of the estate, and a direction or order to that effect was also sought against the other respondents, namely, the State of Bihar, the Commissioner of Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, the Collector of Saran and the Additional Collector, Saran, who is now managing the Hathwa Raj under the direction and the supervision of the Court of Wards. This application was heard by a Bench of this Court, and it was dismissed on the '14th March, 1951'. The petitioner now prays that a certificate be granted to him as contemplated by Article 132 (1), Article 133 (1) (b) and Article 133(1) (c) of the Constitution of India.
(2.) ACCORDING to Article 132 (1), an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order of a High Court in the territory of India, whether in a Civil, Criminal or other proceeding, if the High Court certified that the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution. According to Article 133 (1) (a) an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order in a civil proceeding of a High Court if the High Court certifies that the amount or value of the subject -matter of the dispute in the Court of first instance and still in dispute on appeal was and is not less than twenty thousand rupees. And according to Article 133(1) (c) an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order in a Civil Proceeding of a High Court if the High Court certifies that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court. The learned Counsel appearing for the applicant contended before us that as the value of the estate known as the Hathwa Raj to which the applicant has succeeded on the death of his father is very much more than Rs. 20,000/ - a certificate has to be granted under Article 133(1)(a). The learned Counsel further submitted that in view of the contention that has been raised by the applicant in this case it must be regarded as a case fit for appeal to the Supreme Court.
(3.) THE learned Government pleader who appeared for the State of Bihar contended in reply that the proceeding that was before the High Court cannot be regarded as a civil proceeding inasmuch as the Court of Wards assumed charge of the State of the late Maharaja Bahadur in the exercise of a jurisdiction which is essentially the jurisdiction of a sovereign power. The important point that arises for determination, therefore, is whether the proceeding that was before the High Court can be regarded as a civil proceeding. For determination of this question, it is necessary to know what were the questions raised and decided in the proceeding. It had been strenuously urged on behalf of the petitioner that as he had attained the age of majority in the lifetime of his father the State of Bihar or the Board of Revenue had no right to remain in charge of the estate after the estate had descended on him on his father's death. It was asserted by the petitioner that he was neither a joint proprietor of the Hathwa Raj estate during the lifetime of his father nor had he an immediate or reversionary interest in the property of his father nor was he possessed of any such property of which the Court of Wads could take charge or did, in fact, take charge under section 7 of the Court of Wards Act. The second important contention raised by the petitioner was that section 7 of the Court of Wards Act had been amended and re -enacted in a form which abrogated altogether the power of the Court of Wards to take charge of the person or property of a minor belonging to the family of a proprietor who had been declared as a disqualified proprietor on his own application. Lastly, it was contended that the extension of the minority period to 21 years would be in derogation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner to hold and possess his property and that this extension is in violation of the guarantees of the fundamental rights as indicated in Article 14 of the Constitution. These points were, however, decided against the petitioner, and it was further held that the remedy given by Article 226 was an extraordinary one and could be invoked only in exceptional circumstances by a person who made no alternative remedy by way of suit or otherwise. Speaking for myself, I have not the least doubt that a proceeding in which the above -mentioned points were raised and determined is a "Civil Proceeding" of the nature contemplated by Article 133(1) of the Constitution.;