- (1.) THE following genealogical table (See next page) will show the relationship of the parties who are contesting succession to the grants made by the former States of Jaipur and Alwar for the sewa puja and up keep of the temple of Shri Thakurji Vijey Gopalji in Johri Bazar Jaipur City : - On the death of Radha Ballabh who died without leaving a male issue, Prem Ballabh applied for mutation of the share of the grant held by the deceased in his favour. Suraj Ballabh one of the collaterals filed objection against this. From enquiries made by the lower courts it appears that Radha Ballabh held half share in the muafi and udak land measuring 68 bighas 12 biswas in some of the villages of Tehsil, Thana Gazi granted by the former Alwar State for sewa puja of the Temple of Shri Vijey Gopalji situated on Manik Chowk, Johri Bazar, Jaipur City, A grant of 97 bighas, 13 biswas was also made by the former Jaipur State in the village of Lalsote and Sawai for the same temple. Prem Ballabh claimed succession on the ground of his having been adopted on 10th Nov. , 1941, by the deceased Radha Ballabh. Suraj Ballabh contested this adoption and argued that as it was not sanctioned by the former Government of Alwar and Jaipur States in accordance with the provisions of the Alwar Muafi Rules 1939 and Jaipur Muafi Rules, 1945, the applicant Prem Ballabh can not succeed to the grants held by the deceased Radha Ballabh. Suraj Ballabh alleged that he being the nearest reversioner of the deceased, his share in the grants be mutated in his name. THE lower courts after Sukhdev Swaroopchand Ladlidas Devidutt Ramchandra (without issue) Kishanchand Laksmidhar Chimanlal (went in adoption) Chimanlal (Came in adoption) Ganga Ballabh (died) Suraj Ballabh Radha Ballabh Kalyan Ballabh Durga Ballabh (died) Janki Ballabh Jamna Ballabh Prem Ballabh (Came in adoption) Govind Ballabh Rabi Ballabh (went in adoption to some other family) Prem Ballabh (went in adoption) making enquiries proposed mutation of Muafi and Udak lands the basis of adoption and rejected the claim of Suraj Ballabh. to us by the learned Commissioner, Jaipur for sanction.
(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. The learned counsel for Prem Ballabh argued that in order to succeed a given for Bhog Kharach Muafi and Punnya Udak Muafi sanction of His Highness' Government was not necessary for adopting a son. He drew our attention to rule 4 of the Alwar Muafi Rules, 1939 in which it is mentioned that on the death of an Inam, Bhagat and Jaidad Muafidar, his eldest son or in the absence of a son, his legally adopted son as provided in r. 5 shall succeed. It was argued that the grant in question being neither an Inam Baghat or Jaidad Muafi, sanction of His Highness' Government to adopt a son as given in rule 5 of the Rules of Alwar State Muafi Rules, 1939, was not necessary. It was also argued that succession to Bhog Kharach and Punnya Udak Muafies were entirely governed by rules 7 and 9 in which sanction of His Highness' Government was not necessary for adopting a son. As regards the grant made by the former Jaipur State, it was urged that as adoption took placed in 1941 prior to the promulgation of the Matmi Rules, 1945 which were not retrospective in effect sanction for adopting a sou to succeed to a State grant was not necessary and that rule 14 of Jaipur State Matmi Rules was not applicable to the case. The counsel for Suraj Ballabh urged that in Alwar State succession to all state grants of whatever class they may be were subject to the provisions of rule 5 of the Alwar State Muafi Rules, 1939. It was urged that as sanction of His Highness' Government was necessary prior to adopting an heir and as such permission had been obtained by the deceased Radha Ballabh, the applicant Prem Ballabh could not succeed to the grant as an adopted son and that the whole of it should devolve on the reversioners including Suraj Ballabh. It was also pointed out that in the former Jaipur State it was also incumbent on every state grantee to obtain sanction of His Highness' Government to adopt a son to succeed to a State grant. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on a Full Bench decision of the Revenue Board in Case No. 4 Jaipur of Svt. 2006 Matmi of Rao, Hiralal Muafidar of Bidarka Tehsil Lalsote in favour of Govind Narain, dated 14. 7. 51. The crucial point for determination in these proceeding; is whether both in the Alwar and Jaipur States sanction of His Highness' Government was necessary for adopting a son to succeed to a State grant. In so far as succession to a grant made by the Jaipur State is concerned we have an authority of the Full Bench decision of Revenue Board 'referred to above. No fresh material has been placed before us to enble us to take a different view in the matter. It is true that Matmi Rules are not retrospective but as this Full Bench decision has laid down that according to the practice and usage prevailing even before the Matmi Rules of 1945, were made, every adoption required sanction of the Government and unless sanction was given the right of the adoptee could not prevail as against the other claimants. We can not take a different view in the matter. This being so, the contention of Prem Ballabh that he was adopted prior to the promulgation of the Matmi Rules and that for purpose of succession to the State grant held by Radha Ballabh, his adoption should be considered valid, has no force. As regards the grant made by the former Alwar State, we find that succession to the various types of grants has to be governed by the Alwar State Muafi Rules, 1939. The adoption in question is said to have been made in 1941 and these rules, are, therefore, clearly applicable to the present case. Rule 3 of the rules gives a list of the various types of grants which existed in the State. Rules 4, 7, 8 and 9 contain provisions for succession to these grams. The type of grant in dispute before us is given in rules 7 and 9. According to rule 7, Bhog Kharach Muafis are recorded in the name of the temple for the upkeep of which the original grant was released. On the death of a Pujari his son or nearest of kin shall. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . succeed. . . . . . . . . . Rule 9 lays down that Puunya-Udak and Kabila Kharach Muafis descend to the members of the families in enjoyment of these grants. Rule 5 which is a general rule lays down the procedure for succession to Muafidars. It says that a Tikai Muafidar or a Chhut-bhaiyya who has no male issue may with the previous sanction of His Highness' Government adopt an heir. The contention of the learned counsel for Prem Ballabh that this rule is applicable only to the succession of grants held in Inam, Baghat and Jaidad Muafi and not to other Muafidars is simply frivolous. A claim to succession as given in Rules 4, 7, 8 and 9 is clearly subject to the provisions of rule 5 as the opening words of this rule "a Tikai Muafidar or a Chhutbhiayya" clearly indicate. If it were otherwise, the framers of these rules would have worded this section in a different manner. The mere fact that a reference to this rule is specifically given in rule 4 does not mean that it is not applicable to succession to grants mentioned in rules 7 and 9. In the case before us, as no sanction of His Highness' Government was obtained prior to adoption, the claim of Prem Ballabh to succeed Radha Ballabh as his heir can not be allowed. This being so the share in the estate held by Radha Ballabh can not devolve by succession on Prem Ballabh as his adopted son. Suraj Ballabh also cannot get the whole of it. There are other reversioners who according to the practice obtaining in this family, have to get their shares in due proportion. These reversioners are Kalyan Ballabh Govind Ballabh and Prem Ballabh the surviving sons of Durga Ballabh in the line of Ganga Ballabh. In the result the recommendation made by the Commissioner is rejected and the share in the estate left by Radha Ballabh both in Jaipur and Alwar State, be mutated in the name of Suraj Ballabh and the other reversioners mentioned above in the proportion of -/4/-to Suraj Ballabh and -/4/- to Kalyan Ballabh and -/2/-to Govind Ballabh and -/2/- to Prem Ballabh. The objections filed by Suraj Ballabh are thus party allowed. .;