GANGARAM BHUKKAN` Vs. JATIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short facts of this case are that on the death of Cheetar, mutation proceedings were started in the Court of Tahsildar and finally applicant's name was ordered to be mutated in his place. The matter was resisted in appeal before the Sub -Divisional Officer who upheld the order of the trial Court. The Commissioner set aside the order passed by the lower Courts and ordered that non -applicant No. 1's name be mutated over the lands in dispute. Hence this revision.

(2.) THE only point that has to be considered is whether the applicant is the adopted son of the deceased Bhukkan and whether he is the only successor of the deceased.

(3.) FROM perusal of the record of the lower Courts I find that the trial Court and the first appellate Court have come to the tinning that the applicant is the adopted son of Bhukkan. The second appellate Court has also specifically not challenged this finding but has come to the conclusion that Hindu Law Amendment Act of 1929 was in force in the Holkar State and as such non -applicant No. 1's name was ordered to be mutated by him. The point whether Hindu Law of Inheritance Amendment Act No. 2 of 1929 was enforced in the Holkar State came up for discussion before the then Madhya Bharat High Court in Civil Revision No. 103 of 1948 and his Lordship, the Chief Justice came to the conclusion that the Act was not enforced in the Holkar State. This decision of the High Court is binding on this Court and accordingly the inference drawn by the Commissioner is not justified.