Back
1923 Supreme(SC) 30
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
VISCOUNT CAVE L.C., VISCOUNT HALDANE, LORD PARMOOR, AND LORD PHILLIMORE.
MAHARAJA OF KOLHAPUR - Appellant
Versus
BALA MAHARAJ AND OTHER - Respondents
On Appeal from the High Court at Bombay.
Decided On : June 12. 1923.
Solicitors for appellants:T. L. Wilson & Co. Solicitors for first respondent: Downer & Johnson.
Lands granted for religious purposes are not political tenures. Once such lands are subject to a summary settlement guaranteeing absolute title, succession and adoption are no longer restricted by the need for sovereign approval or political considerations.
Headnote:(A) Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876 - Sections 4 and 12 - Bombay Acts II and VII of 1863 - Summary Settlement - Jurisdiction of High Court - Nature of land tenure - Political tenure vs. Religious grant - Effect of summary settlement on adoption and succession - Where the government refers a question to the High Court under Section 12 of the 1876 Act, the court has jurisdiction even if the claim relates to lands held under treaty or political tenure which are otherwise excluded from civil court jurisdiction under Section 4.
(B) Land Tenure - Determination of political tenure - A grant made as "inam dharmadaya" is religious and not political in nature; the use of terms like "jagir" or "saranjam" in correspondence does not override the express language of the grant. The determination of whether a tenure is political is a matter for the government.
(C) Summary Settlement - Effect on succession - Once lands are brought under a summary settlement that guarantees title in perpetuity without restriction as to adoption, collateral succession, or transfer, the title becomes heritable and transferable without the need for sovereign approval of adoption.
Facts of the case:
A dispute arose regarding the valid adoption of a son for succession to certain lands. The lands had been subject to a summary settlement under legislation that guaranteed absolute title in perpetuity. It was contended that the lands were held under treaty or political tenure, which would exclude them from the summary settlement and necessitate the ruler's approval for any adoption to be valid for the purpose of title.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the grants were religious and not political. The government's action in applying the summary settlement constituted a determination that the tenure was not political. The treaty in question guaranteed the title but did not prevent the application of the summary settlement.
Issues: Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to decide the reference under the 1876 Act and whether the application of the 1863 summary settlement to lands allegedly held under treaty or political tenure was valid and legal.
Ratio Decidendi: The nature of a title is determined by the language of the grant; religious grants are not political tenures. The government's determination on the nature of the tenure is decisive. Upon the application of a summary settlement act, the property becomes heritable and transferable without restrictions on adoption, regardless of previous treaty guarantees.
Result: Appeals dismissed with costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
land law
-
land tenure
- inam grants
- political tenure
- summary settlement
-
land tenure
-
practice and procedure
-
jurisdiction
- statutory reference
-
jurisdiction
Judgement
Consolidated Appeal (No. 88 of 1922) from a decision of the High Court (July 21, 1920) on a question referred to it by the Government of Bombay under s. 12 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act (X. of 1876).
The question referred was " Whether the application in or about the year 1863 of the summary settlement under Bom. Acts. II. and VII. of 1863 to certain lands then held by Shri Tatya Maharaj, which subsequently devolved upon the late Baba Maharaj, was valid and legal." The facts appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.
The High Court rejected a contention that the Government had not power under s. 12 of Act X. of 1876 to refer the question, and held that the lands were not held under treaty or on political tenure so as to be excluded from the summary settlement by Bom. Act II. of 1863, s. 1, cl. 2. The judgment of the High Court is reported at I. L. R. 45 B, 463.
1923. May 8, 10. De Gruyther K.C., Sir George Lowndes K.C., E. B. Raikes and T. B. Ramsay for the appellant.
Upjohn K.C., Luxmoore K.C. and Parikh for the first respondent.
June 12. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by
VISCOUNT HALDANE. These are consolidated appeals from a decision of the High Court at Bombay on a question referred to it by the Government of Bombay, under s. 12 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act (X. of 1876). The question referred was whether the application in or about the year 1864 of the summary settlement under Bombay Acts II. and VII. of 1863 to certain lands then held by Shri Tatya Maharaj, which subsequently devolved on the late Baba Maharaj, was valid and legal. These Acts provided for the settlement of claims to exemption from payment of land revenue and for the guarantee of a title in perpetuity to the holder of the land, his heirs and assigns, without restriction by Government as to adoption, succession or transfer. The Acts applied to holders of land the freedom of which from payment of land revenue had not been the subject of formal adjudication, where the holders had consented to submit the terms and conditions of holding to summary settlement. But the Acts were not to apply where the land was held under treaty or was granted or held as a jagir or saranjam, or on similar political tenure, which was defined to mean tenure created from or dependent on political considerations, the existence of which was to be determined by the Government.
Sect. 12 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act of 1876 gave the Government a general power to refer questions arising in the investigation of claims which, but for the passing of that Act, could have been tried by a civil Court to the High Court at Bombay for decision.
The circumstances under which the question which has arisen was referred to the High Court were these. Baba Maharaj died in 1897. In 1901 a dispute arose between the second appellant in the present appeals, Shri Bala Maharaj, as claimant to the lands the title to which is in controversy, and the first respondent, Shri Jagannath Maharaj, as to which of them was the validly adopted son of the late Baba Maharaj. Jagannath, who was then a minor, brought a suit in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Poona against Bala, who claimed to be the properly adopted son, to establish his own title. The special purpose of the suit was to have it determined that Jagannath had been validly adopted by Babas widow, and that it was consequently impossible for her to make, as she had endeavoured to do, a second adoption of Bala less than two months later. A point relied on by the latter in his written statement was that the approval of His Highness the Maharaja of Kolhapur was necessary to such an adoption, and that such approval not having been given, the earlier adoption was void. In July, 1906, the Subordinate Judge decided in favour of Jagannath, holding that he had been validly adopted as the son of Baba. It was held, as the consequence, that no title or interest in the property of Baba had passed t
