BRIJ RAI SINGH Vs. LAXMAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal with the special leave of this Court, is against the judgment dated January 7, 1954, of the Judicial Commissioner of Ajmer in Civil First Appeal No. 28 of 1953, by which the judgment of the Senior Subordinate Judge Ajmer dismissing the suit of the first respondent was reversed.

(2.) The facts of the case are as follows : One Thakur Banspradip Singh was the Istimrardar of Sawar. He died on September 28, 1947, leaving no male issue either by birth or by adoption. After his death, the Court of Wards took over the estate, and a notice under S. 24 of the Ajmer Land and Revenue Regulation, 1877 (Regulation (No. II of 1877) was issued inviting claims to the estate. One Thakur Khuman Singh, who was the father of Thakur Laxman Singh (respondent No. 1), Thakur Brij Raj Singh (appellant No. 1) and Thakur Inder Singh of Rudh (respondent No. 2) preferred claims. While this enquiry was pending, Thakur Khuman Singh died, and Thakur Laxman Singh's name was substituted in his place. During the enquiry, the Deputy Commissioner referred some interlocutory matter to the Chief Commissioner, and the Chief Commissioner fixed the case of hearing on February 25, 1948. On that date, an application was filed to the effect that Thakur Brij Raj Singh was adopted on February 24, 1948, by Rani Bagheliji, the widow of Thakur Banspradip Singh, and that the Chief Commissioner should move the Governor-General to confirm the adoption under the third proviso to S. 23 of the Regulation. From the judgment of the Senior Subordinate Judge, it appears that the application was opposed. The matter must have been referred to the Governor-General because on September 10, 1951, the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Food and Agriculture, conveyed to the Chief Commissioner the intimation that the President of India was pleased to confirm the adoption.

(3.) Thakur Laxman Singh thereupon filed the present suit joining Thakur Brij Raj Singh, Rani Bagheliji of Sawar and Inder Singh of Rudh as defendants. Two reliefs, among others, were claimed. These were:-