Wanchoo, J. - (1.) THESE are two connected appeals from the judgment of the Chief Court of the former state of Marwar, and have come up before us for disposal under Ordinance No. 40 of 1949, and Ordinance No. 12 of 1950.
(2.) WE may give a brief history of this litigation as that will help in understanding the questions involved in these appeals. One Ganesh was the jagirdar of village Malpuria. He died sometime in 1931, and a dispute arose as to the succession of his jagir. Two sets of claimants appeared on the scene. One set consisted of Mohanlal alone who claimed that he was entitled to the jagir of Malpuria on the ground that he was the adopted son of Ganesh. The other set consisted of Sohanlal and others who contended that Mohanlal was not entitled to the jagir on the ground that he was not in the line of the Murisala, and that they were entitled to the jagir as collaterals being in the line of Murisala. These disputes were considered by the Revenue Minister of the former State of Marwar, and he ordered on 15 -3 -1934, that the two parties should get their claims determined by a civil court. In the meantime, the jagir remained under the management of the State. Thereupon, two suits were filed about August, 1934. In one suit Mohanlal was the plaintiff, and Sohanlal and others were defendants. Mohanlal claimed that he was in the line of the Murisala, and was entitled to the jagir being the adopted son of Ganesh. The other suit was filed by Ambala, father of Sohanlal, and others. They claimed that they were in the line of the Murisala, and were entitled to the jagir as collaterals, and that Mohanlal was not entitled to the jagir as the adopted son of Ganesh as he was not in the line of Murisala, and could not, therefore, claim the jagir. It may he mentioned that the law as to the succession to jagirs of adopted sons in the former state of Marwar was that the adopted son could only succeed to the jagir if he was in the line of the Murisala, i.e. the original grantee. If he was not in such line, he could succeed to the other property of the adoptive father but not to the jagir.
(3.) THE two suits were tried together, and the trial Court held that Mohanlal was not in the line of the Murisala. It also held that Sohanlal and others were in the line of the Murisala. Therefore the suit of Mohanlal was dismissed, and the suit of Ambalal and others was decreed. There were then appeals by Mohanlal in both the suits. Both these appeals were allowed by the District Judge. He held that Ambalal and others had failed to prove that they were in the line of the original grantee, and that Mohanlal had established that he was in the line of the original grantee, and therefore entitled to the jagir. Thereupon, there were two second appeals to the Chief Court, this time by Ambalal's son Sohanlal and others. These appeals came up for hearing before, the Chief Court first in 1939. The Chief Court took the view that a crucial issue had not been framed in the case, and therefore framed that issue and ordered the lower appellate Court to take evidence on that issue, and submit its finding to the Chief Court. That issue was as follows: "Whether the villages of Kanawas and Malpuria were granted to one person or to two different persons, and who was the original grantee in respect of each of these two villages - The finding on this issue was then submitted by the District Judge, and he held that Kanawas and Malpuria were granted to two separate persons, namely Kanawas to Kana, and Malpuria to Kumpa. Thereafter the two appeals were heard by the Chief Court in 1940, and it allowed both the appeals, and setting aside the decrees of the District Judge restored the decrees of the trial Court. Then there were two appeals to the Ijlas Khas, which are now before us for disposal.;