1960 (9) TMI 111 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the suit is barred by Sections 24 and 119 of the Ajmer Land and Revenue Regulation, 1877.
2. Interpretation of Sections 23, 24, and 119 of the Ajmer Land and Revenue Regulation, 1877.
3. Validity and legality of the adoption of Thakur Brij Raj Singh by Rani Bagheliji.
4. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matters of adoption under the Regulation.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the suit is barred by Sections 24 and 119 of the Ajmer Land and Revenue Regulation, 1877:
The Senior Subordinate Judge initially dismissed the suit on the grounds that Sections 24 and 119 of the Regulation barred it. Section 24 deals with succession when there is no male issue and provides that such disputes shall be decided by the Central Government or an appointed officer unless a certificate is granted to approach a Civil Court. Section 119 limits the jurisdiction of Civil Courts by stating that no suit shall be entertained to obtain any order or decision that the Central Government or a Revenue Officer is empowered to make. The Judicial Commissioner reversed this decision, leading to the appeal.

2. Interpretation of Sections 23, 24, and 119 of the Ajmer Land and Revenue Regulation, 1877:
Section 23 addresses succession when there is male issue by birth or adoption and includes conditions such as the rule of primogeniture and the requirement for adoption to be confirmed by the Central Government. Section 24 applies when there is no male issue and allows the Central Government to decide or issue a certificate for Civil Court adjudication. Section 119 reinforces that actions taken by the Central Government under the Regulation are deemed legally and rightly done and restricts Civil Court jurisdiction over such matters.

3. Validity and legality of the adoption of Thakur Brij Raj Singh by Rani Bagheliji:
The main contention was whether the adoption of Thakur Brij Raj Singh by Rani Bagheliji, confirmed by the Central Government, could be challenged in a Civil Court. The appellants argued that the confirmation by the Central Government should render the adoption indisputable under Section 119. However, it was held that while the confirmation process is protected from judicial scrutiny, the validity of the adoption itself, including compliance with Hindu law and other conditions, could still be examined by a Civil Court.

4. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matters of adoption under the Regulation:
The majority opinion held that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to examine the validity of the adoption despite the confirmation by the Central Government. The confirmation does not conclusively establish the adoption's validity if other legal requirements are not met. The court emphasized that Section 23 does not explicitly or implicitly oust the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in such matters. The dissenting opinion argued that the confirmation by the Central Government, which involves determining the widow's power to adopt and the fact of adoption, should bar any further challenge in Civil Courts under Section 119.

Conclusion:
The majority judgment concluded that the suit was not barred by Sections 24 and 119 of the Regulation. The Civil Court has the jurisdiction to examine the validity of the adoption despite the Central Government's confirmation. The appeal was dismissed with costs, upholding the Judicial Commissioner's decision. The dissenting opinion, however, held that the suit was barred by Section 119, as the confirmation of adoption by the Central Government should be deemed legally and rightly done, precluding further judicial scrutiny.

Final Judgment:
The appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming the Judicial Commissioner's decision that the suit was not barred and could proceed in Civil Court.