AMARLAL PUROHIT Vs. GHAKAR BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference from the Division Bench constituted by Sarvshri M. U. Menon Chairman and Z. S. Jhala, Member dated 17. 12. 1963 for the opinion of the larger Bench. The necessity to make this reference arose in the above case, the facts of which are briefly stated as under : Navneetlal Purohit a holder of Chakrana muafi in the former State of Mewar died on 29. 6. 50. THIS Chakrana muafi was resumed under the Jagir Act on 23. 8. 1954. The deceased muafidar was survived by the two widows Mst. Chakarbai and Kesarbai and they applied for the mutation of their name in place of the deceased holder before the Collector concerned and the same was sanctioned on 11. 5. 57. As a result of the resumption of muafi, the two widows claimed compensation for the resumed muafi. In the proceedings that arose before the Deputy Collector Jagir, one Amarlal claiming himself to be reversioner of the deceased filed an objection u/s 37 of the Rajasthan Jagir Act, 1952 alleging that under the Kanun Mal Mewar the widows could not succeed to the Jagir and that he was the rightful heir and the compensation be paid to him. The Deputy Collector, Jagir who tried the compensation application came to the conclusion that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 applied to the case and the widows were entitled to the payment of compensation and consequently rejected the objection petition of Amarlal. Aggrieved by that order Amarlal filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue and during the pendency of the appeal he died and his elder son Bhopal Lal, the present appellant was substituted as his legal representative and his other brother was cited as a respondent. THIS case came up before the Division Bench constituted as referred to above and the point arose whether the succession to the Chakrana muafi held by Navneetlal Purohit should be governed by the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act or by sec. 137 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. Considering this important question of law, the learned Members thought fit to refer the matter to the Full Bench for authoritative pronouncement. They consequently framed the reference as under:' "whether succession to a Jagirdar would be governed by the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act or by sec. 137 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act under which the local law applicable would govern succession and particularly whether in the case of female Hindu irrespective of the provisions in the local law the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1955 will apply although the succession would take effect from before the resumption of the Jagir. "

(2.) AT the outset we examined the scope of the reference, which in our opinion was considered to have been not properly framed. We very much wanted to return the reference to the Division Bench for reframing, but in view of the fact that an important question of law was involved and it required an early pronouncement by the larger Bench it was considered desirable to reframe the reference and to answer it accordingly.