1986 (11) TMI 387 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in favor of the plaintiffs.
2. Whether the order issued by the Ruler of the State of Jodhpur constituted a legally enforceable obligation.
3. Whether the order could be considered a law within the meaning of Section 3(ii) of Ordinance No. 1 of 1949.
4. Whether the payment ordered was an ex-gratia payment or a legally enforceable obligation.
5. Whether the payment could be considered a 'Jagir' or akin to a 'Jagir'.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Reversal of Trial Court Judgment:
The High Court reversed the trial court's judgment and decree that favored the four sons of the former Sovereign Ruler of Jodhpur. The trial court had ruled in favor of the plaintiffs for the recovery of various amounts under an order issued by the Ruler. The High Court dismissed the suits instituted by the plaintiffs against the State of Rajasthan.

2. Legally Enforceable Obligation:
The High Court concluded that the order (Ex. 1) issued by the Ruler was not passed in his capacity as the Head of the State in the discharge of any legal liability or obligation. It was determined to be an ex-gratia payment made by the Ruler in his personal capacity as a father, not supported by any law or custom having the force of law in the State of Jodhpur. Therefore, the cash allowance ordered to be paid retrospectively was essentially a gift and not an enforceable obligation.

3. Order as Law:
The High Court rejected the contention that the order (Ex. 1) constituted a law within the meaning of Section 3(ii) of Ordinance No. 1 of 1949. The court relied on previous decisions, stating that not every order passed by a Sovereign Ruler could be considered 'law'. Only orders passed in the legislative sphere could be considered 'law'. The order in question was an executive order conferring a grant or gift, lacking the characteristics of a legislative measure.

4. Ex-Gratia Payment:
The High Court determined that the payment ordered by the Ruler was an ex-gratia payment in the nature of a gift. The plaintiffs had already been maintained with due dignity and decorum at the expense of the State before the passing of the order. Therefore, the retrospective allowance for a period ranging from 8 to 17 years was deemed a gift rather than a fulfillment of any legal obligation.

5. Payment as 'Jagir':
The High Court rejected the argument that the payment could be considered a 'Jagir'. The term 'Jagir' was associated with grants conferring rights in respect of land revenue. The order in question merely directed the payment of a specified sum of money and had no nexus with any services rendered or customary rights. The court found no basis to classify the allowance as a 'Jagir' or to consider the order as having the force of law.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, concluding that the order issued by the Ruler was a gift and not a legally enforceable obligation. The order did not constitute a law and could not be enforced against the State of Rajasthan. The appeals were dismissed without any order as to costs.