The Ruler's order was final and could not be questioned in a civil court, but the court could examine whether the order was based on a mistake.

Tek Chand, J.

1. This appeal is a regular first appeal instituted by the defendant from the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Patiala, dated 17-4-1954, passed in a suit for possession relating to three properties. Plaintiffs claim for the possession of 33 bighas and 5 biswas of land comprising of a garden was decreed and her suit as to the rest of the properties was dismissed. The parties were directed to bear their own costs. The defendant has instituted this appeal contending that the decree for the possession of the garden passed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent should be set aside. The plaintiff has filed cross-objections praying that her suit should also have been decreed with regard to the land in village Khera and the house known as Amarinder Hall, Patiala. The plaintiff Sardarni Harbans Kaur is the stepmother of defendant S. Anup Singh. The pedigree-table of the family is reproduced below:-

- S. AMAR SINGH __________________________________|_______________________________________ | | | | Sardarni Harbans = Amrik Singh (died on Amarjit Singh Amarinderjit Singh Amardeep Singh Kaur (plantiff) 19th December 1930) (dead). widow of | S. Amrik Singh S. Anup Singh (defendant).

2 There were three properties which were the subject matter of the suit:

1. Agricultural land measuring 362 bighas and 5 biswas in village Khera;

2. a house known as Amarinder Hail, Patiala; and

3. land consisting of garden measuring 33 bighas and 5 biswas.

3. In her plaint, Sardarni Harbans Kaur alleged, that the suit properties had been acquired by her deceased husband S. Amrik Singh during his lifetime, of which, he was the absolute owner. On 4th Poh 1969 Bk. the garden had been purchased in the name of two persons S. Amrik Singh and one Daulat Ram. In Sambat 1972 the share of Daulat Ram was also purchased by S. Amrik Singh. On 27th Chet 1985 Bk. (1928 A. D.) S. Amrik Singh made an oral gift of the garden in favour of his wife Sardarni Harbans Kaur, and the mutation was sanctioned in her name. On 9-12-1930 he executed a will, creating life-interest in the house Amarinder Hall in her favour. Probate was granted to her on 1st Phagan 1991 Bk. (1934 A. D.). She was in possession of the garden during the lifetime of her husband, and took possession of Amarinder Hall and of the land in village Khora, on the death of her husband in 1930. On 19th Poh 19S9 Bk. (2nd January 1933) she mortgaged the agricultural land at village Khera and Amarinder Hall, for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in favour of His Highness the Maharaja of Patiala, and executed a registered deed of mortgage on 24th Poh 1989 Bk. (7th January 1933). It is important to note that the garden was not included in the mortgaged property. His Highness died on 24-3-1938, and the present Ruler was installed on the Gaddi on 6th/7th April 1938. On 9-4-1933, she alleged, that she was forcibly dispossessed by the defendant. In 1940 A. D. the entire property came under the Court of Wards. In this suit, she has claimed possession of the three properties named above, on the ground that she was the absolute owner of the garden and had life-interest in the other two. She also sues for mesne profits realised by the defendant, while he remained in wrongful possession of the suit-properties.

4. The defendant traversed these allegations both on facts and law in his preliminary objections, he alleged, that the present suit was not competent, and the court had no jurisdiction to try it, for the reason, that a decision had already been given by His Highness on the report of the Inquiry Committee constituted under his orders in the year 1941. This decision was made after the Inquiry Committee had submitted its report which was then considered by the Cabinet, and upon which final orders were passed. It was also contended that the plaintiffs suit was barred by time, and that he had become absolute owner by adverse possession.

5. On the merits, the defendant contended, that he along with his father had forme