M.HIDAYATULLAH, J. (For himself, K. C. Das Gupta, J.C.SHAH and N. Rajagopala Ayyangar, JJ.);

(1) THIS appeal with the special leave of this court, is against the judgment: dated 7/01/1954, of the Judicial Commissioner of Ajmer in Civil First Appeal No. 28 of 1953, by which the judgment of the Senior Subordinate Judge Ajmer dismissing the suit of the first respondent was reversed.

(2) THE facts of the case are as follows: One Thakur Banspradip Singh was the Istimrardar of Sawar. He died on 28/09/1947, leaving no male issue either by birth or by adoption. After his death, the court of Wards took over the estate, and a notice under S. 24 of the Ajmer Land and Revenue Regulation, 1877 (Regulation (No. 11 1877) was issued inviting claims to the estate. One Thakur Khuman Singh, who was the father of Thakur Laxman Singh (respondent No. 1), Thakur Brij Raj Singh (appellant No. 1) and Thakur Inder Singh of Rudh (respondent No. 2) preferred claims. While this enquiry was pending, Thakur Khuman Singh died, and Thakur Laxman Singhs name was substituted in his place. During the enquiry, the Deputy Commissioner referred some interlocutory matter to the Chief Commissioner, and the Chief Cominissioner fixed the case for hearing on 25/02/1948. On that date, an application was filed to the effect that Thakur Brij Raj Singh was adopted on 24/02/1948, by Rani Bagheliji, the widow of Thakur Banspradip Singh, and that the Chief Commissioner should move the governor-General to confirm the adoption under the third proviso to S. 23 of the Regulation. From the Judgment of the Senior Subordinate Judge, it uppears that the application was opposed. The matter must have been referred to the governor-General, because on 10/09/1951, the secretary to the government of India, Ministry of Food and Agriculture, conveyed to the Chief Commissioner the intimation that the President of India was pleased to confirm the adoption.

(3) THAKUR Laxman Singh thereupon filed the present suit joining Thakur Brij Raj Singh, Rani Bagheliji of Sawar and Inder Singh of Rudh as defendants. Two reliefs, among others, were claimed. These were :-

"THAT it may be declared.-

(A) that Deft. No. 1 was not adopted as a fact by Deft. No. 2 and is not her adopted son, and in the alternative, the adoption of Defendant No. 1 by Deft. No. 2 is invalid and illegal; and

(B) that plaintiff is the nearest kin and heir to late Th. Banspradip Singh."

The learned Subordinate Judge did not frame issues bearing upon these reliefs, but framed a preliminary issue:

"IS the suit barred by Ss. 24 and 119 of the Ajmer Land and Revenue Regulation of 1877?"

He held that the two S. barred the suit and dismissed it with costs. On appeal to the Judicial Commissioner at Ajmer, the judgment of the Senior Subordinate Judge was reversed. The learned Judicial Commissioner was then moved by Thakur Brij Raj Singh and Rani Bagheliji Singh for a certificate under Art. 133(1) (a) and (c) of the Constitution, which he declined because, in his opinion, his judgment was not final. This court was then moved for special leave, which was granted, and the present appeal has been filed.

(4) WE are concerned in this appeal with the interpretation of Ss. 23, 24 and 119 of the Regulation in the light of the pleadings and the nature of the claim. Before we set out these sections, we wish to examine generally some other provisions of the Regulation bearing upon this matter. The Regulation in question is divided into six Parts, and Part II deals with certain interests in lands, providing inter alia for succession to the holders of such lands. Part 11 is itself divided into nine sections, and section C deals with Istimrari Estates. Section 20 defines an "Istimrari estate" as one in respect of which an istimrari sanad has been granted by the Chief Commissioner with the previous sanction of the governor-General-in-Council before the passing of the Regulation. The section has been ame