Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1958 DIGILAW 245 (RAJ)

IN RE MUTATION OF HARPAL SINGH v. .

1958-11-15

R.N.HAWA, SHYAMLAL

body1958
This case has been submitted by the Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer under sec. 6 of the Rajasthan Jagir Decisions and Proceedings (Validation) Act, 1955, for orders of the Board on the ground that the claimant for succession to the deceased Muafi-holder is not the natural born son of the deceased holder or the natural born son of his pre deceased natural born son. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record as well. The facts of the case have been set out at length by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer in his letter dated the 20th March, 1958 addressed to the Registrar which exists on the file and need not be repeated here. Suffice to observe that the Muafi in question is a Kotri Bund Muafi as defined in sec. 179(c)(1) of the Bharatpur State Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code), that the last Muafi holder Shri Harpal Singh died leaving behind no male issue but a widow Mst. Laxmi Bai and some other collaterals, Arjun Singh etc The point at issue is as to which of the two claimants should be allowed to succeed to this Muafi. 3. Sec. 183 of the Code governing succession to Muafies runs as follows:— "183. The principles of succession of Hindu or Mohammadan Law will apply according as the parties concerned are Hindus or Mohammadans to all kinds of Muafis except A. (1) with the restriction that only male descendants of the original grantee will be recognised as heirs. Adoption will not be recognised unless the adopted son is one of the male descendants of the original grantee and that the previous sanction of the State for such adoption has been obtained. No ascendant of the original grantee or his (ascendants) heir will be recognised as proper heir to the Mafidar either by succession or through adoption. If there is no male descendant of the original grantee or successor by adoption under this rule, the Muafi will revert to the State. If any female members of last Mafidars family survive him they will be entitled to maintenance during their life-time; the amount of such maintenance, however, shall in no case exceed the amount of Mafi enjoyed by the last Mafidar." 4. If any female members of last Mafidars family survive him they will be entitled to maintenance during their life-time; the amount of such maintenance, however, shall in no case exceed the amount of Mafi enjoyed by the last Mafidar." 4. The learned Commissioner has recommended resumption of the Muafi grant along with a maintenance allowance to the widow of the last Muafi-holder in accordance with the provisions of this section. On behalf of the widow of the deceased Muafi-holder it has been argued that in the erstwhile State of Bharatpur there had been a number of decisions by the highest authorities whereby widows were allowed to succeed to the Muafies of their deceased husbands and that the provisions of sec. 183 of the Code should be interpreted in the light of these precedents. 5. Judicial precedents* constitute an important guide to the proper interpretation of statutes. It is a general principle of construction of statutes that the courts should follow existing rulings so as not to upset or disturb existing and settled practice. This rule is based on the ground that otherwise it would embarrass trade and commerce, affect the status of persons and unsettle many titles. The precedents that have been cited in the case by the parties therefore deserve a careful scrutiny in order to ascertain the interpretation that was put upon sec. 183 during the time of the former Bharatpur State. 6. To begin with we may refer to a compilation entitled Rewaj-i Am, Riasat Bharatpur 1938, published by authority. The preface to this book was written by Shri R.L. Batra, Superintendent, Settlement Operations and Revenue Member of the then Bharatpur State Council under orders of the State Council. The opening sentence makes it clear that this compilation was done as no single collection existed in the State which could give guidance in deciding cases relating to interests in agri-cultral land. To fulfil this need this book was written and sanctioned by the Bharatpur Durbar. Chapter V of this book deals with succession except in cases of Muafi and Jagir. Question No. 48 in this Chapter runs thus: — 7. The deceased leaves behind a widow, a daughter or daughters, brother and his descendants, uncles and their descendants but no male issue of bis own then who will be entitled to succeed? 8. Chapter V of this book deals with succession except in cases of Muafi and Jagir. Question No. 48 in this Chapter runs thus: — 7. The deceased leaves behind a widow, a daughter or daughters, brother and his descendants, uncles and their descendants but no male issue of bis own then who will be entitled to succeed? 8. The answer is given in the book itself and is divided into a number of parts. In part (a) it is stated that in all communities the widow would be entitled to succeed. In para (b) it is stated that excepting amongst Saiyads daughthers son is not entitled to succeed except with the consent of the reversioners. In Appendix II a number of cases decided by the Bharatpur State courts have been referred to at pages 102 to 107, We may refer to the following 12 cases wherein mutation was sanctioned in the name of the widow of the deceased: — 9. (1) No. 7 decided by Tehsil Pahari on 22.7.31. (2) No. 10 decided by Tehsil Nagar on 13.6.1901. (3) No. 32 decided by Tehsil Nagar on 13 6-1912. (4) No. 13 decided by Tehsil Nagar on 19 6-31. (5) No. 65 decided by Tehsil Nagar on 8-8 1910. (6) No. 95 decided by Tehsil Nagar on 11.6.1911 (7) No. 134 decided by Tehsil Nagar on 30.9.1914 (8) No. 111 decided by Tehsil Nagar on 27.2.1924 (9) No. 146 decided by Tehsil Nagar on 9.11.1926 (10) No. 793 decided by Tehsil Kumher on 7.1.1922 (11) No. 249 decided by Tehsil Roopwas on 10.7.1908 (12) No. 6 decided by Tehsil Bayana on 28- 2-1901 10. On behalf of Shrimati Laxmi Bai a certified copy of mutation No. 124 relating to the death of Muafidar Partap Singh of Sinsini has been produced which shows that under orders of the Commissioner Jaipur mutation of the deceased Muafidar was sanctioned in the name of his surviving widow. Reference has also been made to the entries in the Wajib-ul-Arz according to which the widows are entitled to succeed to Biswedari rights in the village of the Muafidar. 11. Reference has also been made to the entries in the Wajib-ul-Arz according to which the widows are entitled to succeed to Biswedari rights in the village of the Muafidar. 11. On behalf of Arjun Singh and others copies of two mutations have been produced which show that mutation was sanctioned in the name of the reversioners with liability to maintain the widow case No. 14/16 Muafi Mal, Bharatpur decided on 30.4.43, case No. 258 decided by Mal Dig on 13.7.33 12. Reference was also made to a case recorded on page 155 of the Rewaj-i-Am, Bharatpur (No. 10 of Tehsil Dig). In this case the question was as regards the succession to a Muafi and the State Council by its decision dated 25.3.1910 accepting the opinion of the Revenue Member which was agreed to by all other Members of the State Council allowed mutation of the Muafi in the name of the mother of the deceased holder. It was pointed out in the decision that ordinarily a male descendant was eligible to succeed to a Muafi and this was to be treated as a special case. 13. A survey of these cases leaves no room to doubt that sec. 183 of the Code which was drafted as early as 1905 recognised the rights of males only to succeed to the grant. But in actual practice this section was so interpreted by the various court over all the State as to allow widows also to succeed to their husbands. This interpretation appears to have continued till the merger of the State and it was with this background that in 1954 the Divisional Commissioner Jaipur also sanctioned mutation of a Muafi in the name of the widow of the deceased Muafi holder. Kotri Bund Muafis were granted for the maintenance of the holders and their families. Sec. 183 also emphasises the necessity to maintain a family member of the deceased Muafi-holders family. When the grant itself is for the maintenance there seems to be no point in resuming the grant-theoretically but keeping it alive practically for maintaining the widow of the deceased Presumably this inconsistency came up before the Bharatpur State authorities at a very early period and that accounts for the manner in which sec. When the grant itself is for the maintenance there seems to be no point in resuming the grant-theoretically but keeping it alive practically for maintaining the widow of the deceased Presumably this inconsistency came up before the Bharatpur State authorities at a very early period and that accounts for the manner in which sec. 183 was interpreted, allowing the widows to succeed to the Muafi grants standing in the name of their deceased husbands If section 183 had been followed as strictly as suggested by the learned Commissioner Ajmer it would not have been possible to find a single case of a widow succeeding to the Muafi of her husband. As pointed out above, there are a number of cases recording the inheritance of she widow to the Muafi grant of her husband. All these cases are practically subsequent to the Code itself. It may, therefore, be presumed safely that in the former Bharatpur State the necessity to allow the widow to succeed to the State grant in suitable cases was clearly recognised. 14. To conclude therefore we order that the Muafi grant which stood in the name of the deceased Harpal Singh be mutated in the name of his widow Shrimati Laxmi Bai. The claim of the opposite party Arjun Singh and others to succeed to the great shall stand rejected.