RADHA BALLABH Vs. PREM BALLABH

JUDGEMENT

(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.