Sharma, J.—These are two appeals—one civil second appeal No. 242 of 1949 filed by Bhonrilal and three others and the other No. 243 of 1949 by Narain against the Chief Secretary, Jaipur Government who has now been substituted by the Chief Secretary of the Government of Rajasthan. During the pendency of appeal No. 242 of 1949 Bhonrilal died and Chandnarain, Shyamal and Hanuman Sahai minor under the guardianship of Chandnarain were substituted in the place. Appeal No. 243 was filed by Narain. Both these appeals arise out of suit No. 119 of Svt. 2002 which was filed by the Chief Secretary of the erstwhile Jaipur State against Narain, Bhonrilal, Surajmal, Parasram, Radha Mohan, Mst. Bhonri, Vijainarain, Ram Sahai Govindnarain and Kishendass. The allegations in the plaint were that a four storeyed Haveli situated in Chowkri Topkhana Desh, Rasta Akran, Mohalla Tikkiwalan in the city of Jaipur mora fully described in the plaint was given to one Srichand for residence in Udak on Mah Sudi 15, Svt. 1808. This Srichand was an ancestor of Vijainarain, Ramsahai and Govindnarain, defendants. Since then, Srichand and his descendants had been in possession of the said Haveli as Atiadar. Deepchand one of the descendants of Srichand died in the life time of his father Gopinath. Mst. Kesar widow of Deepchand made a simple mortgage of a portion of the Haveli in favour of Narain defendant. No.l, on the 19th of November, 1931. This property is shown in clause (a) in para 4 of the plaint. Thereafter she made another simple mortgage of another portion of the Haveli in favour of the some mortgagee on the 5th of May, 1932. This property is shown in clause (b) in para 4 of the plaint. These two properties shall be hereinafter called portions A and B respectively. On 30th of September, 1949, Mst. Kesar died. Some time before her death, defendant No.l Narain took possession of portion A, and Mst. Bhonri, who had been living along wish her mother in portion B, took exclusive possession of this portion after Kesars death. There was another descendant of Srichand by the name of Kasinath. There was a decree for many against his widow Mst. Radha and the portion of the house mentioned in para 7 of the plaint was sold in execution of that decree on 23rdMarch 1904 and was purchased by Ramdass Guru of Kishendass, defendant No. 10. There was another descendant of Srichand by the name of Kasinath. There was a decree for many against his widow Mst. Radha and the portion of the house mentioned in para 7 of the plaint was sold in execution of that decree on 23rdMarch 1904 and was purchased by Ramdass Guru of Kishendass, defendant No. 10. This portion will hereinafter be referred to as portion C. Ramdass sold this portion C to Bhonrilal defendant No.2 and Surajmal defendant No. 3 as per sale-deed dated 10th of September, 1923. All these transfers were illegal as the property given in Udak by the State was in alienable. Mst. Bhonri defendant No. 6 had no right to take possession of the portion occupied by Mst. Kesar The authorities of the erstwhile Jaipur State came to know about these transfers in March, 1940, when the property mortgaged under the mortgage-deed of 5th of May, 1932, was sought to be put up for sale in execution of the decree for foreclosure. The plaintiff averred that all the above alienation were null and void against the State. It was prayed that it be declared that the alienations referred to above were null and void against the State and that possession over the property described in the plaint be delivered to the State. 2. It was admitted on behalf of the defendants Bhonrilal, Surajmal and Radhamohan that the property was given in Udak to Srichand but it was alleged that Srichand had been made absolute owner of the Haven and it was not given to him only for residential purposes. It was further pleaded that the alienations had been validity made and the State authorities were in full knowledge of these authorities were in full knowledge of these alienations. It was pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation and estoppel. Govindnarain defendant No.9 admitted that the property had been given in Udak to Srichand but pleaded that no cause of action had arisen against him and he was unnecessarily impleaded as defendant. He arised also the pleas of want of jurisdiction and limitation. Vijainarain and Ramsahai defendants Nos. 7 and 8 admitted that the Haveli was given in Udak to Srichand and pleaded that the decree against Mst. Kesar was collusive and the alinations mentioned in the plaint were invalid. They prayed that the possession of the Haveli in dispute be delivered to them. Vijainarain and Ramsahai defendants Nos. 7 and 8 admitted that the Haveli was given in Udak to Srichand and pleaded that the decree against Mst. Kesar was collusive and the alinations mentioned in the plaint were invalid. They prayed that the possession of the Haveli in dispute be delivered to them. Narain defendant No. 1 too admitted that the property had been given in Udak to Srichand but pleaded that it had been given to him absolutely and he and his descendants had every right to transfer it. He also pleaded the bar of estoppel and limitation. Mst. Bhonri did not appear to defend the suit. Parasram and Kishendass defendants also did not file any written statements. 3. The first court framed seven issues on the 4th of January, 1947. They are as follows— (1) Whether the Haveli in suit was granted merely for residence to Srichand and his descendants possession existed in capacity of State grant? (2) Whether the transfer made in respect of specific portion of the Haveli from time to time are improper and inoperative? (3) Whether the suit is within time? (4) Whether the suit is barred by the rule of estoppel? (5) Whether Narain defendants adverse possession exists over that portion of property which is in his occupation? (6) Whether the present suit suffers from the defect of non-joinder of necessary party? (7) Whether defendants 2 and 5 expended Rs. l500/-upon repairs and constructions in respect of the specified portion which are in their occupation and the charge of this money exists upon the portion claimed and legally such a plea is maintainable ? 4. All the issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff and by its judgment dated 13th of February, 1948 the first court decreed the plaintiffs suit. Two appeals were filed in the court of the District Judge, Jaipur City against the judgment and decree of the first court. One was by Bhonrilal and others and the other by Narain. Both these appeals were dismissed by one and the same judgment by the learned District Judge. As has been said in the beginning, appeal No. 242 was filed by Bhonrilal and his three brothers and appeal No. 243 by Narain. 5. Both the appeals were heard together as the same questions are involved therein and they arise out of the same case and they are being disposed of by this judgment. As has been said in the beginning, appeal No. 242 was filed by Bhonrilal and his three brothers and appeal No. 243 by Narain. 5. Both the appeals were heard together as the same questions are involved therein and they arise out of the same case and they are being disposed of by this judgment. 6. The only point that was raised during the course of arguments by Sri C. L. Agarwal on behalf of the appellant was that the property in suit was given absolutely by the erstwhile Jaipur State to Srichand and he and his descendants had every right to transfer it. Sri Agarwal in the beginning also attacked the finding of the lower! courts that the house was given in Udak to Srichand, but when his attention was called to the written statements and the grounds of appeal in these two appeals he gave up that point and concentra-ted his argument mainly on the point that the property was given absolutely to Srichand with all rights of transfer. 7. It was argued that the patta of the property in suit Ex. P-l/l does not say that any restriction was placed upon the donee by the donor. It was argued that there was no law of the Jaipur State according to which an urban property given in Udak was inalienable. It was consequently argued that both the lower courts were wrong in holding that the property could not be alienated by the donee or his descendants. Another point which was not very seriously pressed was that the State authorities well knew about the transfers in question and, therefore, the State was estopped from questioning the transfers. 8. On behalf of the respondent, it was argued by Sri R. K. Rastogi that in the erstwhile Jaipur State the property given in Udak could not be alienated by the Udki or his descendants. It was argued that the property was given only for residential purposes to the Udki Srichand and there was no power of transfer given in the patta Ex. P-l/l. All the alienations were, therefore, invalid and the State could claim the resumption of the property. It was argued that the property was given only for residential purposes to the Udki Srichand and there was no power of transfer given in the patta Ex. P-l/l. All the alienations were, therefore, invalid and the State could claim the resumption of the property. It was argued that there was no question of estoppel because all that the defendants have been able to show is that at the time of some of the alienations in question the matter was referred to Imarat Department and it raised no objection to the transfers. It was argued that Imarat Department was not the repository of title deeds and no representation was made by it which would act as an estoppel against the State. Shri Rastogi relied upon the case of Ganga Prasad vs. Secretary of State (1). He also relied upon certain Hidayats of the Jaipur State in order to show that property given in Udak by the State was inalienable. Reliance was also placed upon the judgment of the Jaipur Chief Court in the case of Pt. Harkarannath vs. Vakil Sarkar in appeal No. 5 Svt. 1994 decided on 7th May, 1938. 9. We have considered the arguments of both the learned counsel and have gone through the record of the case. It is no longer in controversy that the property in dispute was given in Udak to Srichand, the ancestor of Mst. Bhonri, Vijainarain, Ram Sahai and Govindnarain defendants Nos. 6 to 9 respectively by the erstwhile Jaipur State as per Ex P-l/l. This document is of the year Svt. 1808 which comes about the years 1751 A.D. This document is in respect of the Haveli in suit. There is another document of the same date which relates to certain agricultural property in village Pancha-ka-Nagal in the erstwhile Jaipur State. Both the documents show that Srichand prayed to the thin Ruler of the erstwhile Jaipur State for giving the said village and the Haveli in dispute to him in Pun udak and the Ruler was pleased to hand over both these properties to him in Pun udak and a parwana was granted for each of the two properties. Both these documents were produced from proper custody and the lower courts were, therefore, perfectly justified in acting upon them. As has been said above, the genuineness of these two documents has not been disputed before us. Both these documents were produced from proper custody and the lower courts were, therefore, perfectly justified in acting upon them. As has been said above, the genuineness of these two documents has not been disputed before us. The case therefore rests upon the interpretation of the documents Ex. P-l/l. There is nothing in the document to show that the property in dispute was absolutely given to Srichand. There is also nothing therein to show that the transfer was permanent or the Udki was given any right in the corpus of the property. No words of transfer like gift, sale etc have been used. In each of the two documents it is mentioned that Srichand prayed that the property in suit and the village mentioned in the other patta be handed over to him in Pun Udak and the Ruler was pleased to hand over these properties to Srichand in Pun Udak. The case, therefore, turns upon the interpretation of the word Pun Udak and we have got to see what understood by the word Pun Udak in the erstwhile State of Jaipur. 10. Sri Rastogi on behalf of the respondent drew our attention to certains papers on file No. 233 of 1934 relating to prohibition regarding alienation of Raj grants by sale, mortgage etc. without the sanction of the Darbar. It was reported that properties granted in various ways by the State were being alienated by the grantees which they had no right to do. An inquiry was made and a copy of a Hidayat issued by the Ijias Kamil (full) of the Council dated 25th of July, 1904 was submitted for perusal to the Prime Minister by Mr. Ashfaq Husain Khan, Revenue Minister, on the 3rd of January, 1926. It is follows— "General notifications and instructions have been issued from time to time i.e. in the Svt. years 1891, 1882, 1814, 1887, 1895 and 1897 to the effect that the holders of the Raj grants under Udak, Inam, Bhog. Tankha and Jagir etc, were not authorised to transfer such grants by means of Punpatr mortgage or sale. But it was found out that such instructions were not thoroughly acted upon. It is, therefore, quite unnecessary and out of place to allow the mortgagor and mortgagee to enter into any transaction in respect of grants from the Raj against the express orders issued previously and referred to above. But it was found out that such instructions were not thoroughly acted upon. It is, therefore, quite unnecessary and out of place to allow the mortgagor and mortgagee to enter into any transaction in respect of grants from the Raj against the express orders issued previously and referred to above. If this undesirable practice is allowed to continue, the aim in view to be gained by making grants will not be served, and specially transfers in case of Bhog and Jagir property are very undesirable and lead to many unnecessary troubles. Both the Dewans should, therefore, instruct, according to the general notification, all the Tehsildars and Nazims to see that no Jagirdars and Mafidar transfers or pledges the Raj grant without the sanction of the Council. All such transactions concluded up to this time either privately or by means of documents should be considered null and void. The Civil Courts should be strictly forbidden to register the mortgage sale, Punpatr and Baraskati forms of transfer in case of State Grants." 11. The Prime Minister made the following endorsement on the said communication of the Revenue Minister— "R.M.—I agree. Please see that instructions are issued on the lines of the previous orders." Sd/- Prime Minister 4-1-26. The said communication has been marked as A in red pencil on the file mentioned above. Thereafter a Hidayat marked C was issued on the 19th of January, 1926, by the said Revenue Minister in Urdu containing the translation of the contents of paper A. and it was ordered that both the Dewan is be informed that by issuing general order they should direct all the subordinate officers that no Mafidar or Jagirdar should transfer or mortgage the State grant without obtaining the previous permission of the Government and if any body would contravene these directions he would be awarded punishment besides the declaration of the transfer as null and void. Then there is a paper marked as B in red pencil dated 27th February, 1929 which is a copy of the Resolution No. 6 passed by the State Council at Jaipur State and it is as follows— "Resolved that (1) the Circular prohi-biting sale or mortgage of property granted by the Darbar must be taken to apply to all immovable property, (2) permission for registration of mortgage cannot be granted." This resolution was passed on an application made on behalf of one Jitendranath Benerji son of late Ramlal Benerji for permission to mortgage a house granted to his ancestors by the State. From all these papers, it appears that the property given in Udak by the erstwhile Jaipur State could not be alienated by the Udkis and that atleast as early as Svt. 1867 Hidayat had been issued that such property was not alienable. Similar Hidayats were repeated in Svt. years 1882, 1881, 1887, 1895, 1897 and in 1904 and 1926 A.D. Our attention has been drawn by Mr. Rastogi to Hidayat No. 68 in the collection of Hidayats composed by Hakimuddin Khan with the sanction of the Council of Jaipur State. These Hidayats are from 1883 to 1907 A.D.Hidayat No. 68 relates to Udak and when translated into English it runs as follows-— "Udak too is a property granted by State. No permanent transfer thereof can be made. Rule, which is in force, regarding there being no limitation for resumption of Jagir should also apply to the Udak property." This Hidayat seems to have been issued on the basis of a decision by a Civil Court dated 14th of June, 1897. In the same collections, there is another Hidayat No 69 which relates to Udki and it says that in the case of Jagannath vs. Ramnarain it was decided that if the judgment-debtor has himself mortgaged the property then even though it is Udak property it can be sold in case of non-payment of mortgage money and the decretal amount be realised by sale of that property. This is dated 27th of April, 1897. It may be argued that the two Hidayats 68 and 69 conflict with each other. However, all that Hidayat No. 69 says is that if the judgment-debtor himself has mortgaged the Udak property it can be sold for the realisation of the mortgage money. This is dated 27th of April, 1897. It may be argued that the two Hidayats 68 and 69 conflict with each other. However, all that Hidayat No. 69 says is that if the judgment-debtor himself has mortgaged the Udak property it can be sold for the realisation of the mortgage money. From this it appears that even in the opinion of the court which decided Jagannaths case the mortgage was binding only on the person who had himself made it. It does not lay down that the transfer would be binding on the State. It does not even say that it would be binding on the heirs of the mortgagor. Hidayat No. 69 is. therefore, not in conflict with Hidayat No. 68 which lays down that any transfer of Udak property would not be binding on the State which can recover it irrespective of any question of limitation as in the case of a Jagir granted by the State. Before the erst while Jaipur Chief Courts the question was raised in the case of Pt.Harkaran nath vs. Vakil Sarkar referred to above whether an urban property given in Udak could be alienated by Udki. It was held that it did not give the power to the holder of such property to transfer it to others. It was also observed that it was an established rule of territorial law in Jaipur State that Udak grants made by the State could not be transferred without the permission of the State. In the present case, there is nothing to show that any permission of the State was obtained by Mst. Kesar or Mst. Radha to alienate portion A, B or C. Our attention was drawn by Mr. Agarwal to a decision of Jaipur High Court in the case of Vijailal vs.Anandilal (2).In that case a Haveli was given in Udak by the State of Jaipur and afterwards it was acquired by the State. There was dispute about the compensation. One of the parties said he alone was entitled to it while the others said that all of them were entitled. It was held that the grant was by way of gift with)no reservation of interest and such Haveli became personal property of the grantee and according to the ordinary law of inheritance all his sons were equally entitled. It was further observed that Udak estate is distinguishable from Jagir estate. It was held that the grant was by way of gift with)no reservation of interest and such Haveli became personal property of the grantee and according to the ordinary law of inheritance all his sons were equally entitled. It was further observed that Udak estate is distinguishable from Jagir estate. There is no mention of any of the Hidayats or notifications of the State (which have been mentioned above and it appears that they were not brought to the notice of the learned Judges. Moreover it does not appear what were the terms of the patta. granted in that case. Further it was not a case of the State on one side and the Udki or his alienees on the other and the disputed was between the sons of Udkis one of whom disputed that the alone was entitled by the night of primogeni-ture and the others contended that all were equally entitled None of the parties for obvious reasons raised a point that none of them had any right to the corpus of the property and it was the state which was entitled to it. There was no body to look after the interest of the State as the state was not a party. The observations were more or less obiter dicta In the case of Ganga Parsad vs. Secretary of States(i) referred to above it was held that if the Crown grant is neither permanent nor transferable, the Government can resume it if the grant has been violated by transfer or by sale. There is no doubt that that case was under the Crown Grants Act and the Crown Grants Act, as it was (applicable to the erstwhile British India, Was not applicable to Jaipur State. But the principle is there and the same principle appears to have been followed in Jaipur State in respect of the State grants like Jagirs and Mafis in the form of Pun Udak etc. as appears from the various notifications and Hidayats and the judgment of Jaipur Chief Court referred to above. 11. It was already been said that along with the patta relating to the Haveli in suit another patta was granted in respect of agricultural property. Both were of the same date. Sri C.L. Agaiwal does not deny that agricultural properties given in Pun Udak could not be transferred by the Udkis. 11. It was already been said that along with the patta relating to the Haveli in suit another patta was granted in respect of agricultural property. Both were of the same date. Sri C.L. Agaiwal does not deny that agricultural properties given in Pun Udak could not be transferred by the Udkis. There are papers on the record which show that the agricultural property given in Udak to Srichand has been dealt with in the same manner as the State grants like jagir etc. regarding which even Mr. Agarwal did not contend that they were alienable without the permission of the Darbar. On the death of all the previous holders Matmis have been granted in favour of their succession in the same way as Matmis are granted in the case of other State grants. It is, therefore, quite clear that the agricultural property given in Udak to Srichand by the patta of the same date which the property in dispute was given was not capable of alienation by the Udkis and there is no reason why a distinction should be made in the case of the Haveli in suit. If the agricultural property given in Udak was not alienable in the erstwhile Jaipur State, there is no reason why urban property should be alienable when the terms of the grants in the case of each were similar. We, therefore, hold that the alienations in dispute were all-together unauthorised and are null and void against the State. 12. As regards the points of estoppel, we agree with the learned District Judge that the Imarat Deptt. of the erstwhile Jaipur State was not the custodian of grant-deeds and did not know that the house was no Udak grant. It was only in the year 1940 when the grant-deed was produced that it came to know that the Haveli was no Udak grant with Srichand and his descendants. The mere fact, there-force, that the Imarat Department did not raise any objection at the time of the alienations in question does not create any bar against the State. 13. Both the appeals have no force and they are dismissed with costs to the contesting respondents.