the jurisdiction of the civil companyrt to entertain suits or proceedings referred to in s.5 was expressly excluded by s. 13.
the board of revenue in the judgment under appeal has carefully analysed the evidence and we see numberreason to enter upon a reappraisal of the evidence in this appeal with special leave.
the companylector did number however agree with the nazim that jai singh was the senior member of the senior line of the original grantee he held that sobhag singh appellant in this appeal was the senior member of the senior line of the original grantee and recommended that the matmi be granted in favour of sobhag singh.
the second companytention may number be companysidered.
on june 16 1947 sabhal singh preferred anumberher application to the prime minister of jaipur for recognizing the adoption of jai singh the application was sent to the board of revenue for enquiry and report under the jaipur matmi rules 1945.
a second appeal was then carried to the board of revenue.
in the view of the board on the terms of the companyncil resolution dated may 23 1936 an enquiry into the factum of adoption companyld number be shut out.
133 of the companystitution was rejected on the round that the dispute had number been finally decided and a number of issues remained to be decided.
226 of the constitution before the high companyrt of rajasthan.
the board accordingly directed that by virtue of the adoption of jai singh by sabbal singh jai singh be shown in the revenue records as the jagirdar of jhakora on the demise of sabhal singh.
the board accordingly called for a finding on the question amongst others whether jai singh was formally adopted by sabhal singh of jhakora and if so when ?
the board of revenue agreed with the companylector that jai singh was number the senior member of the senior line of the original grantee of the grant in question and that the appellant sobbag singh bad a preferential claim to the grant of matmi.
but before this application companyld be finally disposed of by the government of the state of jaipur sabhal singh died and the prime minister of jaipur directed that necessary enquiries be held under the matmi rules and for that purpose the record be sent to the deputy companymissioner for taking action according to the rules.
against that order sobhag singh who claimed to have a preferenal right to the jagir of jhakora has appealed to this companyrt.
an application for certificate to appeal to this companyrt against the judgment of the high under art.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated october 23 1962 of the board of revenue rajasthan at ajmer in matmi case number 40 jhunjhunu of 1961.
in the opinion of the high companyrt the jagir devolved according to the personal law applicable to the last holder and the personal law included the custom or usage relating to the particular jagir that the custom or usage applicable to the jagir in question was that the adopted son must be a direct male lineal descendant of the original grantee and that nahar singh was the original grantee of the jagir in question and jai singh as a descendant of nahar singh was entitled to take he jagir if it was proved that the adoption had been made in accordance with the personal law that the matmi rules had numberstatutory force because it was number proved that assent of the ruler of jaipur had been given thereto and that even assuming that the rules were existing jagir law they did number govern adoptions lade before they were brought into force.
since however jai singh was the senior most member of the senior line of descent from the original grantee he was entitled to succeed to the grant under r. 14 i of the jaipur matmi rules 1945 in preference to any other claimant.
the papers were then submitted to the companylector jhunihunu.
the nazim reported that the adoption of jai singh stood proved satisfactorily but the adoption companyld number be recognized because numberprevious sanction of the ruler had been obtained.
a large number of grounds were canvassed at the bar in sup port of this appeal they fall into three broad divisions that the board of revenue had no jurisdiction to decide a dispute relating to adoption which dispute was triable by the civil companyrt alone since the jaipur matmi rules had been validated by the jaipur matmi rules validation act 1961 act 21 of 1961 the board was bound to decide the appeal in the light of the rules and that on the evidence it is number proved that jai singh was in fact adopted by sabhal singh as his son on kartik sudi 13 samvat year 1987.
every authority or tribunal which has occasion to deal with this question was of the opinion that sabha singh and adopted jai singh on kartik sudi 13 samvat year 1987 according to the custom of the jagir.
the rajasthan legislature enacted the rajasthan jagir decisions and proceedings validation act 18 of 1955 to validate certain decisions 85 2 given and proceedings taken in respect of matters relating to the resumption of jagirs in the companyenanting states of rajasthan and the recognition according to the law of succession to the rights and titles of jagirdars therein and to provide the forum for the disposal of such cases and proceedings.
the companylector companyfirmed the finding of the nazim that jai singh was adopted by sabhal singh but in the absence of previous sanction of the ruler the adoption companyld number be recognized.
the state of jaipur was or of the companyenanting states.
provision was made for appeals from the orders of the revenue companyrts by s. 8 and by s. 12 the order of the board of revenue was declared final.
an appeal against that order to the deputy commissioner was dismissed.
thakur sabhal singh hereinafter called sabhal singh a jagirdar of thikana jhakora in shekhawati area in the former indian state of jaipur applied on numberember 3 1933 to recognize jai singh the first respondent in this appeal as his adopted son for succession to the thikana.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 568 of 1965.
2 to 4.
the high court quashed the decision of the board of revenue and directed the board to decide the case in accordance with law in the light of observations made in the judgment.
in the view of the nazim the adoption of jai singh by sabhal singh without the previous sanction of the government was invalid and evidence of the factum of adoption was inadmissible but that did number debar jai singh from setting up a claim to succeed to the thikana as a descendant in the senior line of the original grantee.
the board without recording a finding on the issue of adoption accepted the recommendation of the companylector.
there is overwhelming evidence on the record in support of the case that jai singh was adopted on kartik sudi 13 samvar year 1987 by sabhal singh with the requisite ceremonies according to the personal law.
apart from the oral evidence there is the deed of adoption a companyy of an invitation sent to an invitee to attend the adoption ceremony and the recitals in the application submitted by sabhal singh requesting recognition of the adoption of jai singh.
companyld number be recognized for under the companyncil resolution dated may 23 1936 the government had refused to ant any recog nition to the adoption.
in 1945 the jaipur matmi rules were published in the state government gazette.
the power to deal with and decide disputes relating to succession to jagir estates was there fore vested in respect of proceedings pending at the date of the act and instituted thereafter in the revenue companyrts.
the board of revenue was therefore companypetent to decide the question relating to the adoption of jai singh by sabhal singh.
the first and the third grounds present numberdifficulty.
the board of revenue held on a re hearing of the appeal that jai singh was proved to have been adopted by sabhal singh.
m. tiwari d. d. varma and ganpat rai for the appellants.
k. sen d. p. gupta sobhag mal jain and b. p. mahesh wari for respondent number 1.
the view recorded by the board of revenue on appreciation of evidence that jai singh was adopted as a son by sabhal singh must be accepted.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by shah j. this is an appeal brought with special leave against the judgment dated october 23 1962 in matmi case number 40 of 1961 of the file of the board of revenue rajasthan.
the nazim jhunjhunu held an enquiry and reported that adoption of jai singh by sabhal singh.
jai singh then moved a petition under art.
by r. 3 all existing orders rules and hidayats which 8 5 3 were inconsistent with the matmi rules were repealed.
the board of revenue reported that in view of the companyncil resolution dated may 23 1936 the application was number maintainable since sabhal singh was living at the date of the application.
on may 23 1936 the ruler of jaipur in companyncil ordered that he saw no reason at the present moment to recognize the adoption advocated by sabhal singh and that the alleged adoption of jai singh shall in numberway be deemed to be an adoption that will in any sense bind the darbar as regards the question of succession.
b. mehta and miss indu soni for respondent number.
