- (1.) This is an appeal against an order of the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur, dated 19th January, 1952, accepting the recommendation of the Additional Commissioner. Alwar, dated 7 -11 -51 in a case relating to restoration of muafi grant in favour of Chhutbhaiyas after its reversion to the Tikai.
(2.) We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have examined the record as well. The broad facts of the case are not much in dispute. The muafi in question -was originally granted by the rulers of the Alwar State in Svt. year 1904 on the occasion of the hair cutting ceremony of the heir -apparent to a barbar family According to the Rules then prevailing on the demise of the original grantee, the muafi descended to his several shareholders. Mutations were sanctioned both in the name of the Tikai as well as Chhutbhaiyas. One of such share -holders was Mst. Ram Pyari. On her demise in 1931 her share was mutated in favour of the Tikai in accordance with the Alwar State Muafi Rules, 1926. The Rules were repealed in 1939when a new set of the Alwar State Muafi Rules was enforced with effect from 1 -6 -1939. Rule 10 of these Rules runs as follows: - - "In the case of muafis of the classes mentioned in rule 4 where partition has been sanctioned under the specific authority of His Highness or by his Government each share resulting from such partitions will continue to be regarded as separate grant. In the case of partitions which have not received such sanction however,each share shall on the death of the share -holder, revert to the Tikai. According to this rule in the case of muafi whose partitions were sanctioned under the specific authority of His Highness or his Government each share resulting from such partition was to be regarded as a separate grant. Only in the case of such partitions which had no received such sanctions, the share of the Chhutbhaiyas was on his death to be reverted to Tikai. It appears that the application of these Rules was not understood properly and doubts may have been raised as regards the fate of those partitioned shares which though had received sanction required in the Rule, but nevertheless had reverted to the Tikai in accordance with the 1926 Rules. To remove any doubt on the point a further clarification was issued on the subject which runs as follows: - - "Rules regarding the shares of Chhutbhaiyas in Jagirs, having been made clear by the Extraordinary Gazette, Notification of August 23,1939 the question of similar clarification of the rules governing the shares of muafi Chhutbhaiyas has been under the consideration of His Highness Government who have now been pleased to announce that: - - (1) Chhutbhaiyas shares which had been recognised by His Highness Government as provided in sec. 18 of the Muafi Rules will be governed by secs. 8, 9, and 10 of the new Rules. All such shares given to the Tikai in pursuance of the policy of reversion which has been heretofore been followed will be restored to any surviving legitimate heir in the line of the original share holder." (2)........................... Sheobux and Narainlal presented an application before the Hakim Punya and muafis of Alwar on 3 -10 -1947. They prayed for the restoration of Mst. Rampyaris share in their favour, on the basis of their being her legal heirs, in accordance with the 1939 Rules and its subsequent clarifications. The Tikai contested the application. The S. D. O. Alwar reported on 13 -10 -1950 that the grant in question should revert from the Tikai to the legal heirs of the Chhutbhaiyas. The Collector Alwar agreed with this view and submitted the papers to the Additional Commissioner. After some movements to and from between these two officers the Additional Commissioner was ultimately of the view that no procedure for restoration in such cases was prescribed in the Rules; that the claim of legal heirship could only be decided properly by a competent civil court; and that the grant being an inam grant could devolve only upon the Tikai. He was, therefore, of the opinion that no interference need be made. He submitted these papers to the Commissioner who accepted this recommendation on 19 -1 -1952. Narain has come up in revision before us.
(3.) We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have examined the record as well. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the question being of a political character dots; not lie within the jurisdiction of a civil court and the subordinate officers should not have directed the appellant of seek redress there. Reliance has been placed in this connection upon a number of decisions, each one of them will be noted separately. In I. L. R. 17, Bombay 431 (P.C.) equivalent to Indian Decision, Bombay, Vol. IX, page 281 the question related to some inam villages and lands which were included originally in one saranjam under the Marehta Rulers for the support of troops. It was decided therein that the question to whom a saranjam or Jagir shall be granted upon the death of its holder is one which belongs exclusively to the Government to be determined upon political considerations and it is not within the competency of any legal tribunal to revise the decision.. In I.L.R. 9, Cal., 188, the question was as to whether the zamindari was in the nature of a ghatwali tenure or not within the meaning of the term as applied to in Regulation of 1814. It was held that "the Jagir though hereditary was not subject to the ordinary rules of inheritance according to the Hindu or Mohammedan Law : but was held upon the condition of approval of the heir by the Government." In AIR 1951, Nagpur 327, it was observed that under a grant which provides for the maintenance from the holder, a person can only draw such maintenance as the Government fixes for him The matter being one for the Government, the civil court would have no jurisdiction to deal with it." None of these cases has any bearing upon the present case. All these decisions lay down that the question to whom the Jagirs be granted upon the death of its holder is evidently a political question, for every Jagir is held during the pleasure of the granter and every recognition of succession to it amounts to a fresh grant even though the succession may be hereditary. This is not the point involved in the present case. When Mst. Rampyari died the question of her succession opened and was decided by the then competent authority. The grant was mutated in favour of the Tikai. The appellant seeks its restoration on the basis of a subsequent amended in the Rules referred to above. In other words he does not seek succession to a grant upon the demise of the last holder but he wants a revision of a sanctioned grant in the life time of the grantee. This is evidently based on a right or title alleged to have accured under the amendment and clarification referred to above. The appellant has not only to establish that the grant in question is included within the purview of the amendment, he has also to establish such relationship with the deceased Mst. Ram Pyari as may entitle him to the restoration of the grant. In this connection we may refer to rules 20 to 25 of the Alwar State Muafi Rules, 1939. Rule 20 authorises His Highness Government to resume a portion of a muafi land for public purposes. Rule 21 prohibits the muafidar from alienating the grant and provides the legal consequences of disregard of the provision.Rule22and contains the procedure for fixation of maintenance allowance for Chhutbhaiyas by the Thikana. Provision for appeals is also to be found in this Rule. Rule 23 declares the entries in the settlement records to be conclusive as regards the boundaries of a muafi village. Rule 24 deals with the succession upon the death of muafidar and gives the procedure commencing from the report by the legal heir of the deceased. The method of enquiry to be conducted by the Hakim Muafiyat and interim management of the estate is given in detail in this Rule The release of the muafi is also provided for in this Rule. Rules 25 which is important for present purposes provides that "in all metiers not specially provided for in these Rules all muafis and muafidars shall be subject to the general laws and regulations of the Alwar State." To our mint he procedure for the restoration of a chhutbhaiyas share which had reverted to the Tikai under the old Rules, and the authority competent to deal with it are matters not provided for in 1939 Rules. It has not been denied before us that the C.P.C. has been in force in the former Alwar State. As laid down in sec. 9 C. P. C. all suits of a civil nature are within the jurisdiction of civil courts, excepting of course those whose cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. No such bar, express or implied, has been shown to exist in the case. On the other hand the provisions contained in Rule 25 of the Alwar State Muafi Rules, 1939,expressly authorise civil courts to take cognizance of all matters not provided in the Rules. We are therefore, of the opinion that the learned Additional Commissioner was clearly justified in holding that the matter was beyond the cognizance of revenue officers and that no interference was called for in the case. There is no substance in this appeal which is hereby rejected.;