THAKORE SHRI VINAYASINHJI Vs. KUMAR SHRI NATWARSINHJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is at the instance of the plaintiff-appellant, since deceased, and is directed against the judgment and decree of the Gujarat High Court reversing those of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Himatnagar, whereby the learned Civil Judge decreed the suit instituted by the appellant.

(2.) The late Thakore Sartansinhji, the father of the appellant, was the Ruler of the former Mohanpur State situate in the district of Sabarkantha, Gujarat. After independence, the said Mohanpur State merged in the then State of Bombay (now the State of Maharashtra). The former Ruler, the father of the appellant, by a deed of gift dated May 14, 1951 gifted certain properties to his youngest son, the respondent No. 1 herein. By his will dt. May 22,1951, the former Ruler also bequeathed certain properties to the respondent No. 1 and his mother. The father of the appellant died on Dec. 9, 1955 and on his death the appellant became the Ruler. On May 10, 1956, the suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted by the appellant challenging the validity of the said deed of gift and the will. In the suit, the case of the appellant was that as the rule of primogeniture applied to the Raj Estate, he being the eldest son succeeded to the 'Gadi'. It was contended that the former Ruler, that is, the father of the appellant, had no power of alienation either by gift or by will and, accordingly, the disposition made by him by the said deed of gift and the will in favour of his younger brother, the respondent 1, was illegal and invalid.

(3.) The respondents including the younger brother of the appellant, contested the suit, inter alia, denying that the former Ruler had no power of alienation as contended by the appellant. It was averred that the deed of gift and the will were perfectly legal and valid. The learned Civil Judge decreed the suit in part declaring that the deed of gift and the will were illegal and directed the respondent 1 to hand over to the appellant the possession of the properties which were all agricultural lands, as mentioned in the deed of gift. The learned Civil Judge passed a decree for mesne profit, but refused the prayer of the appellant for an injunction on the ground that the appellant had failed to prove his possession of the properties mentioned in the plaint.