This case relates to the succession of Pannalal Mehta Jagirdar of Mehtaji-ka-Khera a grantee of the former Mewar State. The pedigree table of the family may be given below :— Sh. Mojiram Ghanraj Jawerchand Deepchand Lalchand Herlal Shobbalal Moti Singh Sher Singh Onkarlal Pannalal Madan Singh Bakhtawar Singh Dhannalal Ummedmal (Adopted) Shri Pannalal Mehta expired on 8.2.50. Succession was claimed by Ummedmal Mehta and Moti Singh, Madan Singh etc, Ummedmal based bis claim on the ground that be was adopted by the deceased Pannalal and that bis adoption was duly sanctioned by the then Maharana of Udaipur Moti Singh and Madan Singh etc denied the validity of the adoption. According to them the adoption was never sanctioned by the Maharana of Udaipur and they being the nearest reversioners of Pannalal by virtue of being the sons of his deceased fathers brothers claimed succession of the grant themselves. It appears that the Govt. of Rajasthan in the Revenue Deptt. decided the controversy on 12.7.55 vide letter No. F 4 (215) Rev A/55 dated 12-7 55. Ummedmal filed a writ petition in the Honble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan. When this fact came to the notice of the Government the case was re-examined in the meanwhile fee. 37 of the Rajasthan I and Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act under which the Govt. bad decided the succession was repealed and the Rajasthan Jagir Decisions and Proceedings Validating Ordinance had been enforced. Hence the case was transferred by the Govt. to the Board for decision under the provisions of the aforesaid Ordinance. Thereafter the writ petition was rejected by the Honble Chief Justice with the following observation :— "It appears that the matter out of which the writ petition arose has been referred to the Board of Revenue for decision under the Rajasthan Jagir Decisions and Proceedings Validating Act No. 18 of 1955 and will be heard by the Board in due course. In view of this the petition becomes infructuous and is hereby dismissed". 2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone into the record as well. We would at the outset, enumerate the points that fall for determination in this case, 1. Was Ummedmal in fact taken in adoption by the deceased Pannalal? 2. Was Ummedmal in the line of the original grantee ? If not with what eflect? 3. We would at the outset, enumerate the points that fall for determination in this case, 1. Was Ummedmal in fact taken in adoption by the deceased Pannalal? 2. Was Ummedmal in the line of the original grantee ? If not with what eflect? 3. Was Ummedmals adoption by Pannalal sanctioned by the Maharana of Udaipur? If so with what effect? 4. Do Moti Singh, Madan Singh etc. have preferential claim over Ummedmal to succeed to the grant? 3. We would examine each of these points ad seriatem :— Item Nos. 1 & 2—As far as the factum of adoption is concerned there exists on record a certified copy of an adoption deed executed by Pannalal on Kartik Badi 11 Svt. 1997 which was attested by about a dozen of witnesses most of them belonging to the Mohta community. This document was registered on 19.2.41. Pannalal stated unequivocally before the Registrar that Ummedmal had been adopted by him. There is absolutely no reason to discredit or disbelieve this document. In fact Madan Singh, Moti Singh etc. have not seriously challenged the execution of the adoption deed or its registration. Subsequently on 27.6.1949 Pannalal executed a will in respect of Ummedmal wherein no reference has been made to this adoption. It was therefore, argued that this omission should mean that there was in fact no adoption. To our mind, this inference is not possible. Pannalal executed this will evidently with a view to ensure that Ummedmals succession would not be beset with difficulties and this will may therefore be regarded as an additional precaution that may have been suggested to him by his own intelligence or by legal advice received by him. In view of this it was not necessary for him to refer to adoption. During the course of arguments objections were raised to the effect that Ummedmal being an orphan could not have been validly taken in adoption and that as he was not in the line of the original grantee, he should not have been taken in adoption. These objections evidently pre-suppose the adoption itself and evidently would not arise unless there had been an adoption in fact. Looking to the entire circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that Ummedmal was in adoption by the deceased Pannalal. 4. Sec. 107 and 108 of the Kanun Mal Mewar, 1917 regulate succession to State grants. These objections evidently pre-suppose the adoption itself and evidently would not arise unless there had been an adoption in fact. Looking to the entire circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that Ummedmal was in adoption by the deceased Pannalal. 4. Sec. 107 and 108 of the Kanun Mal Mewar, 1917 regulate succession to State grants. Sec. 107 lays down that on the death of a Jagirdar his Jagir shall devolve upon the male lineal descendants of the original grantee in accordance with the provisions of this law and rules made thereunder. Sec. 108 deals with adoption and lays down that a Jagirdar or his widow could take in adoption a descendant of the original grantee with the sanction of the ruler. The adoption in the present case took place long before the enforcement of the Kanun Mal Mewar. Sec. 2 of this Kanun Mal Mewar lays down that all proceedings pending in a revenue or civil court at the time of the enforcement of the Kanun shall continue to be heard and determined in accordance with those rules and notifications which were enforced prior to such enforcement. In other words, it was expressly provided in the Kanun itself that if will not have any retrospective effect The validity of Ummedmals adoption shall have to be determined therefore without a reference to the provisions of the Kanun Mal Mewar 1947. The law as may be obtaining at the time of adoption shall have to be locked into for deciding the point. It has been conceded by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that no written rules or regulations, orders or Hidayats existed in the State of Mewar It has also been conceded that adoption among state grantees were allowed by the ruler. According to Ummedmal it was not necessary that the adopted son should be in the line of the original grantee while according to the other party this restriction held the filed. The parties were however, unanimous on the point that the Ruler of the Mewar State had full and unfettered discretion in the matter and that his discretion once exercised was not open to any question before any other authority. The parties were however, unanimous on the point that the Ruler of the Mewar State had full and unfettered discretion in the matter and that his discretion once exercised was not open to any question before any other authority. As the Ruler of the Mewar State then enjoyed full sovereign rights over his subjects it clearly follows that his word was law and naturally if he recognised any adoption it was not to be questioned by anybody Our finding on the point, therefore, is that Ummedmal having been adopted by Pannalal prior to 1947, the adoption cannot be questioned even if Ummedmal is outside the line of the original grantee, if the adoption was recognised by the Ruler of the Mewar State in exercise of his sovereign authority. 5. Item No. 3—This is the point on which the controversy centres. We will examine all the documents which have a bearing on this point. (A) On 4.2.41 the Revenue Minister of the former Mewar State submitted a note in case No. 4/16 of Svt. 1995 setting out at length the dispute relating to this adoption. The note practically contains all the grounds of attack which have now been employed by Madan Singh etc. against this adoption along with the replies given by Pannalal in support of the adoption. This was the decision of the Ruler dated 21.3.41 which when rendered in English would run as below :— As for as private property is concerned, parties should be instructed to approach a competent court for adjudication of their rights. Moja Antri has been granted in Jagir to Pannalal and Ummedmal jointly, hence there can be no dispute about it. The question of Jagir is subservient to our sweet will and hence we shall decide about the ancestral jagir subsequently as it may suit our pleasure". This decision of the Ruler leaves no room to doubt that the question of Ummedmal being within or without the line of the original grantee was to have no significance whatsoever and that the entire matter was to be decided on the sweet will of the Ruler. This provides a further basis for not allowing any significance to this fact now. This provides a further basis for not allowing any significance to this fact now. It is also clear from this document that the Ruler while giving his decision on 21.3.41 made it clear that he did not recognise the adoption till then and that the Same was to be decided by him as and when it suited his pleasure. (B) In November, 1941 a complaint was made by Moti Singh etc. against Pannalal that be was making efforts to adopt Ummedmal and to have entries in Government record made to that effect. This was noted by the Education Minister in his minutes dated 16.11.41 and it was pointed out by him that entries wherever existing would not defeat the rights of any party and that any party aggrieved by it could have his right decided in a competent court. (C) Sanction of the Zanani Deodhi issued to the Home Deptt., of the Mahakma Khash, dated 13.11.43. It appears that in this sanction Ummedmal has been described as a son of Pannalal and on that ground he was authorised to draw some payments. (D) A decision of the Mahakma Khash regarding partition of the jagir dated 13.2.45. As Ummedmal could not have any interest in the Jagir during the life-time of Pannalal and naturally his name finds no mention in it. (E) On 8.7.45 Madan Singh etc. put up an application before the Udaipur Commissioner of the then set up complaining that Pannalal was making realisation of rent and was inserting the name of Ummedmal as his son in the receipts which were being issued by him. The Mehakma Khas of the Mewar Government ordered on 13.7.45 that entries in private papers would have no effect upon jagirs original papers and Govertment record and hence no further action was needed in the matter. 6. All these documents show that up to this stage in chronological order Ummedmals adoption was not recognised by the Ruler. (F) Entries in the private account books of the Maharana Sahib of Udaipur relating to Svt. 2002 and Svt. 2003 (entry dated 11.8.46) showing that Ummedmal, adopted son of Pannalal presented a Nazar of Rs. 1. Entry dated 13 8-56 showing that Pannalal presented a Nazar of Rs. 2 for having taken Ummedmal in adoption. At one stage of the proceedings some doubts were thrown on the genuineness of these entries in the household account books. 2002 and Svt. 2003 (entry dated 11.8.46) showing that Ummedmal, adopted son of Pannalal presented a Nazar of Rs. 1. Entry dated 13 8-56 showing that Pannalal presented a Nazar of Rs. 2 for having taken Ummedmal in adoption. At one stage of the proceedings some doubts were thrown on the genuineness of these entries in the household account books. The Jagir Commissioner caused a thorough inspection of all the account books to be made in this connection and came to the conclusion that no doubts whatsoever can be thrown upon the entries. During the course of the arguments before us it was admitted, though now very candidly, that these entries are genuine. Objections have however been raised on the ground that as no regular order sanctioning adoption was issued by the Ruler, this entry by itself should not be given much credit. 7. To appreciate the strength of this objection, we have to look to the circumstance of that period. Pannalal was a Paswan Musaddi and was attached in that capacity to the Zanani Deodhi. He had therefore abundant access to the Ruler of the Mewar State. As is clear from the document mentioned at C above. The payment relating to Zanani Deodhi which stood in the name of Pannalal was transferred in favour of Ummedmal in December, 1943 and in the order issued by the Zanani Deodhi, Ummedmal was shown as a son of Pannalal. It appears that as a result of repeated opportunities which Pannalal was in a position to place by reason of free access to, the Ruler eventually agreed to recognise this adoption and it was thereafter that Nazrana was presented by the adoptive father and the adopted son. That such a practice existed uniformly in the former State of Mewar cannot be denied as numerous instances have been proved to exist. All these Nazrana were recorded in the account books of the Ruler. The acceptance of the Nazrana was regarded as the invincible proof of the recognition of adoption. The following instances of Nazrana and consequent recognition of adoption as pointed out by the Master of His Highness House hold and not disputed by the parties in the case may be set below :— 1. In Svt. 1928, Shri Kothari Kesri Singh adopted Balwant Singh and his Nazrana was entered in the Bahi. 2. In Svt. The following instances of Nazrana and consequent recognition of adoption as pointed out by the Master of His Highness House hold and not disputed by the parties in the case may be set below :— 1. In Svt. 1928, Shri Kothari Kesri Singh adopted Balwant Singh and his Nazrana was entered in the Bahi. 2. In Svt. 1928, Shri Kothari Chhaganlal adopted Moti Singh and his Nazrana was also entered in the Bahi. 3. In Svt. 1958, Shri Govind Singh Mehta adopted Shri Laxman Singh Mehta and his Nazrana was also entered in the Bahi. 4. In Svt. 1973, Shri Jodha Singh Mehta adopted Nawal Singh and this adoption was also entered in the Bahi. These instances spreading over a period of 45 years which ended about quarter of a century ago prior to the birth of this controversy can very fairly raise an inference that in the former State of Mewar the only form of recognition of adoption universally regarded as valid and binding was the acceptance of Nazrana by the Ruler. These Nazranas were always entered in the account books of the Household and these account books were maintained with meticulous care and efficiency. The Nazrana of Ummedmal finds an entry in these Bahis fin the year 1946. Looking to the circumstances of the case it is clear that the fact of adoption had come to the notice of the Ruler as early as 1941 but he recognized the adoption only in 1946. The fact of this adoption is not open to any serious doubt and must be allowed its full scope in these proceedings. It has been argued that this recognition was not authenticated or evidenced by the issue of a formal order to the Mahakma Khas. This contention is without any force. Orders by Mahakma Khas as is natural and has been rightly pointed out by the Household Controller would be issued only in those cases which were referred to the Ruler by Mahakma Khas and which were necessary to be returned to Mahakma Khas with the decision of the Ruler. In a case like this which sprang up on the verbal prayer of a Paswant Musaddi, sanction was accorded by the ruler verbally. In a case like this which sprang up on the verbal prayer of a Paswant Musaddi, sanction was accorded by the ruler verbally. It is only the entry of Nazrana in the Bahi which established the fact of this sanction for evidently Nazrana could not have been presented either by Pannalal or by Ummedmal if the Ruler had not allowed it and similarly the Ruler himself would not have accepted the Nazrana if he had any objections or mental reservations with regard to the recognition of this adoption. The prevalent practice of the State of Mewar as has transpired in this case prior to the enactment of Kanun Mal Mewar 1947 was that the Ruler reserved the authority to recognise adoption to himself and that he exercised the same unfettered by any rules or regulations as an unbounded royal prerogative. To argue that this exercise of prerogative should not be regarded as invalid by virtue or Kanun Mal Mewar 1947, would be clearly untenable, 8. To conclude therefore, we hold that Shri Ummedmal Mehta was adopted by the deceased Pannalal in his life time and the adoption having been recognised by the Ruler of Mewar in 1946 in the exercise of his sovereign and prerogative rights must be given effect to in deciding the succession for this State grant. In view of this finding it is not at all necessary to examine the claims of Moti Singh, Madan Singh etc. for in the presence of the adopted son of the deceased, they could have no claim whatsoever in the state grant. We therefore, hereby order that Shri Ummedmal be allowed to succeed to the grants held by Pannalal deceased and that Mehtaji Ka Khera, Tehsil Mandalgarh, Rehent Nami Dhimdi Tehsil Girva Udaipur District standing exclusively in the name of the deceased Pannalal and Antri, Tehsil Chittor standing jointly in the name of Pannalal and Ummedmal be mutated in the name of Ummedmal Mehta son of deceased Pannalal Mohta. No succession fee shall be charged from Ummedmal as he belongs to the Musaddi Paswan class which is exempt from this duty. Chatund Chakri charges, if any, leviable under the rules shall be duly collected by the Collector.