Judgment

THAKKAR, J.:- Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in favour of the four sons of the Sovereign Ruler of the then State of Jodhpur in the context of an order Order No. C.B./7114 dated 13th September, 1946 (Ex. 1) passed by the said Ruler, and in dismissing the suits instituted by them against the State of Rajasthan for the recovery of various amounts under the said order is the problem in these appeals. By certificate granted under Article 133(l)(a) of the Constitution of India by the unsuccessful plaintiffs. That order issued by the Ruler inter alia provided that an annual sum of Rs. 30,000/- be paid to each of his aforesaid sons (described as Maharajkumars) by way of an annual allowance with retrospective effect from the date of their birth till the date of their attaining majority.

2. On September 13, 1946, some two a half years prior to the merger of the State of Jodhpur with the United States of Rajasthan, (which event occurred on April 7,1949), the then Ruler of the said State passed order Ex. 1 which is the foundation of the suits giving rise to the present group of appeals.

3. The said order in so far as material reads as under :-

"His Highness the Maharaja Sahib Bahadur has been pleased to order that with a view to making suitable provision for the maintenance of younger Maharajkumar and Shri Baiji Lal Sahiba :

(i)xxxxxx

(ii)xxxxxx

(iii) An annual allowance of Rs. 30,000/- per annum each be granted to all younger Maharaj Kumars from the dates of their birth for the period of their minority.

(iv)xxxxxx

(v)xxxxxx

4. The amounts claimed by each of the four sons in the suits instituted by them in 1955 were in respect of the claim for annual allowance by way of grant at Rs. 30,000/- per annum computed retrospectively from the dates of their birth till the date of the passing of the order, that is to say, till September 13, 1946. The particulars relating to the claim may be tabularized as under :-

Appeal No. before the Supreme CourtName of the appellantDate of birthPeriod for which allowance is claimedAmount claimed

Rs.

C.A. 97(N) of 1972Devisinghji20-9-193320-9-1933 to 13-9-19462,34,550/-

(13 years & 7 days)

C.A. 98(N) of 1972Dalipsinghji20-10-193720-10-1937 to 13-9-19761,61,050/-

(8 years, 11 months & 11 days)

C.A. 99(N) of 1972Harisinghji21-9-192921-9-1929 to 13-9-19463,06,500/-

(17 years & 10 days)

C.A. 2290(N) of 1970Himmatsinghji21-6-192521-6-1925 to 13-9-19464,42,000/-

(17 years & 10 days)

5. The following facts have been established :-

(1) Jodhpur was a sovereign State till April 69 1949.

(2) The said Jodhpur State merged with the other Soverign States to form the United State of Rajasthan on April 7, 1949.

(3) On April 7, 1949, an ordinance was promulgated which provided for the continuance of the laws of the covenanting States (which included Jodhpur State) in the United State of Rajasthan by virtue of Section 3 which provided inter alia, that all laws in force in the aforesaid covenanting States immediately before the commencement of the Ordinance shall continue to be in force.

(4) On April 7, 1949, administrators were appointed in respect of different States which had merged in the State of Rajasthan.

6. The High Court allowed the appeals preferred by the State and dismissed the suits instituted by the sons of the late Ruler of Jodhpur on the following reasoning :-

(1) The order Ex. 1, on the basis of which the claim of the plaintiffs was founded was not passed by the then Ruler in his capacity as the Head of the State in the discharge of any legal liability or obligation subsisting in favour of his four sons. It was an ex-gratia payment ordered to be made by him in his personal capacity as the father of the four plaintiffs and not in his capacity as the Sovereign Ruler of the State inasmuch as the order for payment was not supported by any law or custom having the force of law in- the then State of Jodhpur.

(2) The cash allowance ordered to be paid to the four plain