Case: Raja Ram Chandra Reddy &amp; Another Vs. Rani Shankaramma &amp; Others

2. These proceedings arise out of a dispute between the late Raja Durga Reddys widow, Rani Lakshmayamma, and his daughter Rani Shankaramma, which commenced in or about the year 1930 and has been pending for over 25 years. Raja Durga Reddy die on 2-4-1900, possessed of properties including a Jagir Samashtanam, Papannapet. Hew left behind him surviving, his widow, Rani Lakshmayamma (the present 2nd appellant before us) then aged about 16 yeas and a daughter, Rani Shankaramma (the 1st respondent before us) then aged about one year. On Raja Durga Reddys death, management of his entire estate was taken over by the Court of Wards under orders of the Government. The supervision of the Court of Wards was established by Government Notifications published in the Hyderabad Gazettee dated 21-5-1900, and 4-6-1900. This was followed by Virsat (succession) proceedings relating to the Jagir Papannapet Samasthanam which resulted in a Firman of the Nizam dated 29-5-1903, sanctioning the Virasat in favour of the daughter, Rani Shankaramma, the material portion of which is as follows :"* * *As regards succession,* * *It should be sanctioned in favour of Durga Reddys duaghter. The boy that may be born of his daughter will be recognised as entitled to the Samasthan after her, provided Durga Reddys daughter is married to a boy by the sanction of the Government. Till Durga Reddys daughter attains her age of discretion, his widow be regarded as the legal guardian of her daughter; but supervision over the revenue and expenditure of the Samasthan will be exercised by the Court of Wards. The Court of Wards will however have the power to allow the widow to take part in the management of the Samsthan when and to the extent it thinks fit."Six years later, Rani Shankaramma was married to one Venkata Pratap Reddy, the brother of Rani Lakshmayamma, with the sanction of the Nizam, by his Firman dated 15-10-1909. Rani Shankaramma attained majority in the year 1920. An application was made on her behalf on 22-1-1920, for release of the estate from the Court of Wards. On that application, the Nizam issued a Firman dated 24-12-1920, continuing the supervision of the Court of Wards, which runs as follows :"There is nothing in the Firman of his last Highness (presumably referring to the Firman of 1903) which would necessitate the release of the estate from the supervision of the Court of Wards as a matter of course after the late Durga Reddys daughters attaining majority. Although the girls age is now 21 years and she has been also married by sanction of Government, as she had no issue, very recently it was necessary to remove from the estate such self-interested persons as Abdul Hai etc., it is not at all advisable to raise the supervision of the Court of Wards from the estate in its present state. The supervision be allowed to continue. The case may be considered in future if Durga Reddys daughter begets a son."This was again affirmed by a later Firman dated 9-11-1922, issued on a memorial by Rani Lakshmayamma for release of the estate in favour of her daughter who by then was about 24 years old. This firman runs as follows :"So long as no son in born to the daughter of Durga Reddy, and he attains majority, the Samasthan cannot be released in favour of a woman. The supervision of the Court of Wards is to maintain as before. Therefore the orders issued prior to this by my deceased father in this connection point to the same effect. Hence the applicant be informed of my order and the proceedings be closed."It appears from the record that later on the question of handing over of all estates whose administration was being continuously kept by the Court of Wards even after the respective wards attained majority was referred to a special Commission by a general Firman of the Nizam dated the 5-5-1927. The opinion of the Commission dated 17-4-1928, was that all the estates in which the minor had become a major including the Samasthan Panpannapet should be released. Meanwhile, however, Venkata Pratap Reddy the husband of Rani Shankaramma died after a short illness on 19-3-1928, leaving no issue. Thereupon the mother of Rani Shankaramma conveyed her desire that the Samasthan should, for the time being, be retained under the Government supervision. Following on this, a Firman dated 6-8-1928, was issued by the Nizam as follows :"Durga Reddys estate be, for the time being, retained according to custom under the supervision of the Court."Thereafter the prospect of a son by the daughter having disappeared, both the ladies Rani Lakshmayamma and Rani Shankaramma, filed a joint application dated 22-7-1947, for taking a boy in adoption with the following prayer."That for the sake of continuing of this old Samasthan, which the Government has preserved and maintained for the last eight generations, through adopted sons, your Honour will be pleased to award permission for adoption in accordance with the provisions of Dharam Shaster, when a boy will be searched for and produced, so that the Government may, after interview and selection, award sanction. It may be stated at this stage that according to the Atiyat law of Hyderabad (the special law relating to Crown Grants including Jagir Grants) the roots of title is the grant of recognition by the Nizam. It appears further from the record - and it is not disputed - that any adoption, if it should be available for recognition by the Nizam in the matter of succession to Jagir property, is to be sanctioned by him at every stage, i.e. (I) permission to make adoption must be given to the intending adopter; (2) the selection of the boy has to be approved (3) permission has to be granted for the performance of the adoption; and (4) the actual adoption, when duly performed, has to be recognised. It was in consonance with this practice that the above mentioned joint application was made.It was after that differences arose between the two ladies, the mother and the daughter, which unfortunately appear to have assumed a great deal of irreconcilable acuteness and have continued up-to-date. In spite of suggestions from this Court during the hearing that this long pending litigation might well be brought to a final termination by private settlement between the parties, it has unfortunately not been found possible for the parties or their counsel to avail themselves of this opportunity, even at this stage.2. Between the years 1929 to 1934 there was conflict between the two ladies as to who was to obtain the permission to adopt and as to whether the adoption made was to be recognised and confirmed by the Nizam. The relevant material of this period which has been placed before us is voluminous. In addition to the Firmans of the Nizam it consists of petitions counter-petitions, appeals, notes opinions and recommendations of the various officers who had to deal with this matter, some supporting the case of one party and some of the other.Some of them contain either direct or incidental expression of views as to the nature of the right of Rani Shankaramma in the Jagir Papannapet Samasthan and the nature of the right that the boy to be adopted would have thereto. It is not necessary for the purposes of this case to go through all that material. It is enough to notice a few land-marks. The first step, in this stage, is the joint petition for permission to adopt, already mentioned above. After exchange of opinions from officer to officer on this application, a Firman was issued by the Nizam on 19-2-1931, as follows :"Lakshmayamma, the widow of the late Raja Durga Reddy be given permission to adopt."Thereupon Rani Lakshmayamma,with the help of a special committee nominated for the purpose, selected Ramachandra Reddy, the 1st appellant before us, who was then as young boy. She applied on 5-12-1931, for permission to adopt the said boy and to perform the ceremony of adoption.Rani Shankaramma came forward with an application dated 18-12-1932, contesting the right of her mother to make the adoption and requesting that the permission granted to her may be revoked and sanction be given to herself to make the adoption on the ground that she was the Maashdar of the Jagir. Thereupon the Nizam directed by a Firman dated 13-7-1933, that the dispute between the mother and daughter as to who is to be entitled to adopt should be formally enquired into by the Atiyat (Crown Grants) department and their opinion forwarded to him.The Atiyat Committee reported in favour of the mother Rani Lakshmayamma in pursuance of its decision dated 4-1-1934. An application by Rani Shankaramma for review was also dismissed by the said committee on 14-2-1934. Before the matter reached the Nizam Rani Shankaramma presented a memorial to the Nizam as against the report of the Atiyat Committee. Taking all this material into consideration the Nizam gave his final decision and issued his Firman dated 22-3-1934, as follows :"In this connection the opinion of the Nazim-e-Atiyat is approved. Rani Lakshmayamma be given permission to adopt, the sanction for which has already been accorded by my order dated 19-2-1931. However, Rani Shankaramma, through the Court of Wards, can independently obtain permission to adopt for the spiritual benefit of her husband, which will have no connection with the Atiyat Shahi (Crown Grant)".The formal adoption accordingly took place and Rani Lakshmayamma executed on 6-4-1934, a deed of adoption in favour of Ramchandra Reddy, the 1st appellant, who as stated in the deed, was a boy of 12 years at the time. Proceedings thereafter followed for a formal recognition of this adoption by the Nizam, at which stage again there were petitions and counter-petitions. There was a regular enquiry by the Subedar Medak who took evidence, followed by an appeal to the Nazim Atiyat and a further appeal to the Executive Council (Atiyat Appeals Branch). This ultimately resulted in a further Firman by the Nizam dated 26-8-1934, whereby the adoption of the 1st appellant, Ramchandra Reddy, as regards Crown Grant Maash, was recognised in the following terms :"The adoption of Ramachandra Reddy made by Rani Lakshmayamma after performing religious ceremonies is sanctioned as regards Crown Grant Maash on condition of payments of one years income in accordance with the opinion of the Subhedar Medak and Committee Atiyat."The 1st appellant, Ramachandra Reddy, attained majority in 1947. We are directly concerned in this case only with the events subsequent to his attaining majority. But before passing on to those events it is desirable to allude briefly to the position of affairs up to that date.3. After the adoption was recognised in 1934, Rani Lakshmayamma made attempts to assert the rights of the adopted son by two applications. One was dated 21-4-1937, and asked for restarting of the succession enquiry to her deceased husband, Durga Reddy, and to release the estate in her favour (presumably as guardian of the minor adopted son). The other application was dated 12-6-1937, and requested that Inam enquiry into the Maash of late Raja Durga Reddy be started vis-_is the petitioners - Rani Lakshmayamma and Ramchandra Reddy - and the Muntaqabs be prepared in her name. This apparently had reference to certain earlier proceedings taken by the Revenue Department under which on 128-12-1927, the office of the Nazim Atiyat had issued a notification as follows :"It is hereby notified that Rani Shankaramma, daughter of Raja Reddy, holder of Papannapet Samasthan of Medak Taluq, had applied for an Inam inquiry and restoration of grant in respect of Sovereign Grants situate in Government and Jagir territory, (I) Pargana Haweli Medak, (2) Pargana Takmal, (3) Paragana Utlar, (4) Pargana Sirpur Patti of Medak district and (5) Pargana Aman Bole of Nalgunda district (a village-wise detailed statement of which is herewith enclosed with the notification). Therefore, whosoever has any plea for the grant claimed, could produce with the documents for objections within six months from the date of this Notification. Otherwise, the Inam inquiry would be started against the claimant referred to above, and judgment be passed and Muntakab be formally issued with the restoration of the grant and no plea would then be entertained."It does not appear from the record what happened on this notification. It appears probable that the Muntakabas relating to these properties were issued in favour in Rani Shankaramma. The application above mentioned dated 12-6-1937, by Rani Lakshmayamma and Ramchandra Reddy presumably related to the properties mentioned in this notification.On the objection filed by Rani Shankaramma, these matters were elaborately gone into by the Nizam Atiyat who dismissed the claims by his judgment dated 20-10-1937. An appeal therefrom by Rani Lakshmayamma and Ramchandra Reddy was dealt with the Appeal Committee and was dismissed on 27-2-1938.4. Rani Shankaramma was also making parallel attempts during this period (1934 to 1948) to obtain release of the estate from the Court of Wards and kept up her agitation throughout. None of her attempts were successful. Two Firmans of his period throw light on the situation relating to the management at this date. The first was dated 24-11-1934 and was in the following terms :"In views of the facts detailed in the Arzdasht the opinion of the council is right that the estate should be under the supervision of the Court of Wards in the presence of special circumstances. But the Court of Wards will consult Rani Lakshmavamma in important matters pertaining to the adopted son and his interests."The second Firman was dated 22-4-1936, and was to the following effect."Hence in my opinion the distribution of the items of the budget followed from a long time should continue as before. It is proper.The position thus till after the 1st appellant, Ramachandra Reddy, became a major was that notwithstanding the competing claims and attempts of Rani Shankaramma and Ramachandra Reddy to obtain actual possession of the property and of the Jagir from the Court of Wards, the properties were not released and the administration of Court of Wards was being indefinitely continued.5. The police action in Hyderabad took place in September, 1948. After its termination a series of legislative measures were enacted by the Military Governor by virtue of power conferred on him by a Firman of the Nizam dated 20-9-1948. One of these measures is the Hyderabad (Abolition of Jagirs) Regulation, 1358F. (Regulation No. LXXIX of 1358 F.) which came into force on 15-8-1949. By this Regulation, broadly speaking, all Jagir lands were incorporated into State lands as from the appointed day and the administration of all the Jagirs was to stand transferred to a Jagir Administrator to be appointed by the Government (Ss. 5 and 6).From that date the Jagirdars or Hissedars or maintenance holders were only to get cash payments out of the net annual income of the Jagirs worked out in accordance with the provisions of that Regulation (S. 6). This was to be by way of interim maintenance allowance until commutation for Jagirs is determined (S. 14). It was specifically provided that if a Jagirdar or Hissedar dies, his share in the net income shall devolve in accordance with his personal law (S. 6(8)) abrogating thereby the previous law that the succession to the Jagir right dependent entirely on the recognition or regrant thereof by the Nizam. Such share however was not alienable without previous sanction of Government (S. 6(7)). It was also provided after the commencement of the Regulation no person shall be appointed to be, or be recognised as, a Jagirdar whether in succession to a deceased Jagirdar or otherwise (S. 4). Thus in effect the original Jagir tenure as such was abolished and under this Regulation a hereditary but inalienable personal right to receive a portion of the net income thereof by way of interim maintenance was substituted.This was followed a few months later by the Hyderabad Jagirs ((Commutation) Regulation 1359 F. (Regulation No. XXV of 1359 F.) which became law on 25-1-1950. This provided for payment of compensation by way of the commuted value of the Jagir to be determined by the Jagir Administrator in accordance with certain provisions of the said Regulation. The share of the Jagirdar or the Hissedar in the commutation sum was specifically declared inalienable save with the previous sanction of the Government. As a result of these two Regulations taken together the Jagir holder was given the right to receive a commuted sum in lieu of his right to enjoy the Jagir under the previous law. Anticipating these statutory measures which, presumably were in the offing from after the police action, the 1st appellant made two applications dated 24-3-1949 and 26-4-1949 to the Revenue Member of the State. The first of these recited the fact of his adoption of Raja Durga Reddy and recognition thereof by the Firman of the Nizam and mentioned the likelihood of compensation having to be paid in the event of the proposal to take over the Jagirs and Samasthans in the State is finally decided upon and prayed."that such compensation as may be held to be payable to the holder of his Samasthan may be paid over to him and to him alone. In the event of the Samasthan still being under the Court of Wards when the compensation falls to be paid then the said compensation may be paid into the Court of Wards to the exclusive credit and benefit of the petitioner alone."The second application, while also reiterating his adoption and the recognition thereof, prayed."(a) that the Virasat of Raja Durga Reddy may be ordered to be sanctioned in his name; and (b) that it is proposed to release the estate the same may be refeased in his name."In between these two applications Rani Shankaramma filed an application on 11-4-1949, to the Revenue Member of the State narrating the previous history and stating that she, having attained majority long ago and being aged about 52 years by then an being capable of managing her estate, the estate may be released from the Court of Wards and prayed that the Samasthan of Papannpet be released in her possession forthwith and all her properties ancestral or purchased from the nucleus of her estate, be restored to her with accounts :The application of the 1st appellant Ramchandra Reddy, dated 24-3-1949, for payment of compensation wad endorsed over by the Revenue Secretary to the Revenue Member with the following remark."No action by Court of Wards is necessary on this application. We are not competent to decide the question at issue. It will be decided by the Atiyat department."The Revenue Member rejected the application by endorsing "I agree. The applicant be informed accordingly". Thereupon on 22-6-1949, the appellant Ramachandra Reddy filed a formal plaint in the Court of Nazim, Atiyat, describing himself as the plaintiff and Rani Shankaramma as the defendant and mentioning his claim to the Virasat of the late Raja Durga Reddy. He therein referred to the two prior applications dated 24-3-1949 and 26-4-1949, and to the fact that the first of the applications was returned with the endorsement that he should approach the Atiyat Department and stated that he was accordingly submitting that plaint and annexing copies of the previous applications along with it. His prayer was that the Virasat of the late Raja Durga Reddy be sanctioned in his name and that possession of the estate be granted to him. This application of the appellant dated 22-6-1949, was decided against him by the Nazim Atiyat on 1-2-1950, after hearing him. The following paragraph in his judgment in instructive."The Firman of H. E. Highness is clear. Not only is the succession sanctioned in the name of Shankaramma absolutely, but it is also mentioned in the sanction that after her the claims of any son born to her will also be considered. Shankaramma has at present no children nor can she get any children in future. Who will be entitled to succession after Shankaramma will be decided at the proper time. In particular, the succession proceedings to Durga Reddy cannot be initiated now because sanction has been accorded to it already by H. E. Highness. No question of amendment to the Takhat Virasat can arise because there is neither any mistake nor is it against sanction. Nor has any condition or restriction imposed in the sanction (sic). Succession to Shankaramma cannot, be decided during the lifetime of Shankaramma. Therefore absolutely the petition does not lie under the provisions of any law or regulation. Proceedings may be closed."As against this decision Ramachandra Reddy filed two identical appeals on the same date, i.e. 23-2-1950, one "to the Atiyat Committee" and the other "to the Revenue Minister, Atiyat - Intezami", contesting the conclusion of the Nazim Atiyat. While these proceedings were thus being agitated from authority to authority by the appellant Ramchandra Reddy, the petition filed by Rani Shankaramma dated 11-4-1949, to the Revenue Member was reinforced by another application virtually for the same purposes to the Nazizm, Court of Wards on 22-11-1949. Both these were probably put up before the Revenue Board Member. He thereupon passed an order on 19-12-1949, "I would like to hear the parties. Fix a date". Subsequently, the question was taken up and the Board Member appears to have recommended the release of the estate in favour of Rani Shankaramma. The Revenue Member (of the Government) endorsed thereon on the 13th March, 1950 that he "agreed with the recommendation." Before however any such release actually took place it appears that on an application submitted by the senior Rani Lakshmayamma objecting to the release, the Revenue Member passed orders on 12-6-1950, to call for both the parties and to fix a date for counsels arguments.Thus by the early part of 1950 two matters came up for consideration, viz (a) relating to an alleged amendment of the Virasat of the Jagir of late Raja Durga Reddy on the basis of two simultaneous appeals (1) to the Atiyat Committee, and (2) to the Revenue Minister, and (b) relating to the release of the estate by the Court of Wards in favour of Rani Shankaramma. At some intermediate date, the Revenue Membership ceased and Revenue Minister came in his place by constitutional changes. The Revenue Minister accordingly took up both the matters together for consideration and passed an elaborate order dated 19-6-1951, the purport of which will be presently stated. It is this order of the Revenue Minister which was under challenge before the High Court. The appeal which the1st appellant, Ramachandra Reddy, filed to the Atiyat Committee on 23-2-1950, was rejected by it on 24-11-1950, by an order in which they noticed that the parties had already argued the matter, by then, before the Revenue Minister and "that in any case they had no jurisdiction and that the file accordingly be closed."The Revenue Minister after making his order, above mentioned, by 19-6-1951, submitted the file to the Chief Minister for his orders. Both parties appear to have submitted their written representations against this order to the Chief Minister and asked for an opportunity to be heard. It does not appear, however, that there was any hearing by the Chief Minister who passed an order on 4-10-1951, in the following terms :"Having perused the judgment of the Revenue Minister and the representation made by Rani Shankaramma and Ramachandra Reddy, I see no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the Revenue Minister which are hereby confirmed."Thereupon Rani Shankaramma applied to the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution for a writ to quash the order of the Revenue Minister on the ground that it was without jurisdiction and also for a writ of mandamus directing the Government to release the estate in favour of the petitioner. The High Court by its judgment and order dated 12-8-1952, quashed the Revenue Ministers order and directed the Government to release the entire estate in favour of Rani Shankaramma. The present appeal is against this order of the High Court.

Court's reasoning:
The conflict of title arises from the fact that on the death of Raja Durga Reddy, Virasat for the Jagir had been sanctioned in the name of Rani Shankaramma by Firman of 1903 and that by the Nizams Firman dated 26-8-1934 the adoption of Ramachandra Reddy by Rani Lakshmayamma was sanctioned by the Nizam as regards Crown Grant Maash. What exactly the phrase "as regards Crown Grant Maash" was intended to convey has not been specifically stated in this Firman.In view of the fact that the Hyderabad (Abolition of Jagirs) Regulation abolishing the Jagirs themselves had already come into force by that time,his jurisdiction to deal with the matter has been questioned by the 1st respondent. But it has been maintained on the side of the appellants on two cumulative grounds. (1) That the questions raised before the Revenue Minister were matters which arose from a pending enquiry falling within the proviso to S. 21 (2), Hyderabad (Abolition of Jagirs) Regulation, and (2) that the questions at issue related to the Intazami side of the Atiyator not this contention is tenable, there can be no doubt that the judgment of the Nazim Atiyat dated 1-2-1950, was given on the footing that it was the petition of the 22nd June, 1949, which was by then treated as pending. An appeal as against the judgment, therefore, to the Revenue Minister would be an appeal in a pending proceeding if the appeal was competent. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the view taken by the High Court that there was no pending proceeding falling within the proviso to S. 21 (2) by the time when the Revenue Minister took up the matter in August, 1950, for hisare, however, unable to agree that either the wording of the petition filed by Ramachandra Reddy on 22-6-1949 or substance of the claim raised therein and the proceedings following thereon, can by any logic be said to be for a mere amendment of the Takhta Virasat or of the "Muntakhab" falling within item 7 of Schedule A of Gashti 19 of 1332 F. above quoted. The actual import of the various entries in Schedule A is somewhat obscure and could not be satisfactorily elucidated before us by learned counsel on either side. But it appears to us reasonably clear that the intention of the circular was that what may be called judicial matters which raise serious issues between parties involving their legal rights were to be taken out of the hands of the mere administrative machinery and had to be dealt with by the Directorate of Atiyat under judicial procedure and that it is only what may really be called administrative matters relating to Atiyat grants that could be dealt with as Atiyat Intezami by the ordinary Revenue departmental Machinery. This appears also to be confirmed by another copy of Circular No. 19 of 1332 F. supplied to us wherein as against entry No. 7 relating to amendment of Muntakhab of schedule A it is specifically stated "in case of any dispute the Revenue Minister will send the same to the Commissioner". Whether this copy is correct or not, there can be no doubt that in this case so far as Jagir property was concerned the question raised was a serious question of title between the parties. What in substance was asked for was the reopening of the Virasat proceedings which were originally taken on the death of Raja Durga Reddy and the reconsideration of the same with reference to the subsequent adoption which, it was claimed, dated back to Raja Durga Reddys death and divested the title of Rani Shankaramma.A careful perusal of the Revenue Ministers order relating to this part of the case clearly shows that this was in fact the contention which was accepted. Notwithstanding strenuous arguments to the contrary by the learned Attorney-General, we feel unable to accept the contention that the question raised before the Revenue Minister was one merely on the administrative side of the Atiyat department so as to vest the jurisdiction in him to deal with it. We are, therefore of the opinion that so far as the dispute as to Atiyat property was concerned and determination of the question involved in the case was outside the authority and competence of the Revenue Minister however bona fide his assumption of jurisdiction in this behalf maysuggestion - as we understand it - is that the Chief Minister by his order of confirmation must be taken to have adopted the Revenue Minister as his own and that, therefore, it was the Chief Ministers order, in terms of that of the Revenue Minister, which was the final and effective order in the case.In view of the language of S. 13(2), we are unable to accept these contentions.12. Doubtless, what falls within the ambit of the deeming provision is the Chief Ministers order and not somebody elses order. But what is cured thereby is not merely the incompetence any invalidity, if any, inhering in the Chief Minister to pass such an order. The language used is wide enough and strong enough to cure the incompetence and invalidity arising from similar lacuna in the precedent proceedings of which the Chief Ministers order is the culmination. It does not appear to us that in any other view full effect can be given to the language used. Even, on the view suggested by Mr. Engineer, the Chief Ministers order in such cases was to be taken as a substitute for the Nizams Firman and the purpose of S. 13(2) was to obviate the possible objection that the Nizams Firman in Atiyat case was an exercise of his prerogative and could not be delegated. If, as contended, that true purpose of S. 13(2) was to supply the lack of the imprimatur of the Nizams Firman, it is difficult to see why the operation of this provision should be confined to such of the Chief Ministers orders as are preceded by recommendations of competent authorities. No such limitation could have been imported into the effect of the Nizams Firman, at the time when the Nizam was in a position to issue the Firmans. We have no doubt, therefore, that if the intended effective order in a particular case was the Chief Ministers order, such an order would be validated by S. 13(2) irrespective of the competence of the preceding authorities who dealt with themay be mentioned at this stage that this aspect of the case does not appear to have received adequate attention in the Highthe present case the position is different. The case was taken up by the Revenue Minister by virtue of S. 20(2) of the Hyderabad (Abolition of Jagirs), Regulation as being in a pending case. It was to be decided with references to "the existing law" as defined in that Regulation. Under that law in a case of this kind the only effective order would be that of the Nizam himself and not of any subordinate authority. As already pointed out the whole intendment of section 13(2) of the Atiyat Enquiries Act was to invest the Chief Ministers order in such cases with the a tributes of the Nizams Firman. This was indeed realised by the Revenue Ministerclearly shows that though he considered the matter to be within his jurisdiction or competence for the purposes of the enquiry, he was alive to the situation that the effective order in the case could only be that of the Nizam himself before the police action, or of the Chief Minister at the date of the order in question by virtue of what was then assumed to be his validly delegated authority in thissubmission of his order to the Chief Minister was in terms only "for orders" and not for bare confirmation.Now, there can be no doubt that the Nizam himself in the period prior to the police action was competent to exercise the power not merely of accepting or vetoing, but of coming to his own independent conclusion, and of making any kind of disposition of the Jagir property (or its money substitute) such as the one contemplated by the order of the Revenue Minister in this case and overriding any supposed rights therein under his prior Firman. If so the Chief Minister could also do the same in purported exercise of the delegated authority (subject only to the objection as to the validity of suchChief Minister if he chose to accede to the request could well have come to an independent conclusion on a fresh consideration of the entire material.When, therefore, in spite of such a request by both the parties in spite of such a request by both the parties for being heard, the Chief Minister confirmed the Revenue Ministers order and specifically said that he saw no reason to interfere, it must be taken that he adopted the Revenue Ministers order as his own.That the Revenue Ministers order was elaborate and that of the Chief Minister is summary does not affect this position. We are therefore, clearly of the opinion that the Chief Ministers order must be taken to be a competent, valid and final order in so far as it relates to the Atiyat and Jagir property and that, in the events that have happened and by virtue of S. 13(2) of the Atiyat Enquiries Act., there has emerged a valid and final determination of the respective rights therein of the three contending parties, viz., Ramachandra Reddy, Rani Lakshmayamma and Rani Shankaramma.The measure of their respective rights is as specified and directed in the Revenue Ministers order. What becomes final and conclusive under S. 13(2) of the Atiyat Enquiries Act is the determination of the rights and not the reasoning or the steps leading thereto. It is needless to add that this does not affect any rights in or questions relating to non-Atiyatfirst observation that requires to be made as against the validity of this order is that there is no clear proof before us that Rani Shankaramma had title, if any, to the entire estate - a matter about which we express no opinion. Her title prima facie was only to the Jagir at the start and it may be a matter of contest between the parties as to whether there were any other properties of Raja Durga Reddy which he died possessed of and whether the subsequent accretions are accretions to the Jagir estate or to the non-Jagir property, it any, of Raja Durga Reddy or whether they are her absolute property. Even if the continuing title of Rani Shankaramma to the Jagir property were assumed it may not follow that the entire estate under the control of the Court of Wards is being held on behalf of Rani Shankaramma. This is a matter which may require further investigation. The High Court had no material before it to assume that the entire estate belonged to Rani Shankaramma and to direct the handing over of it to her.Apart however from his preliminary observation, the right of Rani Shankaramma to obtain possession of the estate is not as clear as the learned Judges have assumed it to be. Mr. Engineer for Rani Shankaramma has drawn our attention to voluminous material in this case bearing on her alleged right to obtain release in her favour, which according to him, has been accepted by a number of officers on prior occasions. But the fact remains that in spite of such expressions of opinion the estate was not fact handed over and some of the Firmans of the Nizam himself (in particular the Firmans dated 22-1-1920, 9-11-1922 and 24-11-1934, set out in an earlier part of this judgment) show a definite expression of intention to the contrary. We cannot treat the right of Rani Shankaramma to obtain possession and the obligation of the Court of Wards to hand over possession as beyondstated at the outset of this judgment the property was taken possession of immediately after the death of Raja Durga Reddy and the supervision of the Court of Wards was established, by notifications of the Government published on 21-5-1900 and 4-6-1900. It was thereafter that the Virasat in respect of Jagir Samasthan Papannepet was sanctioned in the name of Rani Shankaramma by a Firman of the Nizam dated 29-5-1903. That Firman specifically committed the care of the property and the person of Rani Shankaramma to the Court o f Wards. Subsequent proceedings have treated the supervision of the Court of Wards over the property as having been established by the Firmans of the Nizam. If therefore, S. 53 of the Court of Wards Act is to be applied to this case it would require another Firman of the Nazim for the supervision of the Court of Wards to be released and the fact that Rani Shankaramma attained majority would not by itself be enough. This indeed was the assumption to be found in some of the latter Firmans of the Nizam relating to this matter.It is true that clause (c) of S. 53 is inapplicable in the altered circumstances at any rate after 1950, since admittedly a Firman of Nizam can have now no constitutional validity. But we have not been shown whether this clause has been adapted or modified by the President under Art. 372 of the Constitution nor has it been urged before us that in the altered circumstances we can treat it as either abrogated or as suitably adapted. It is, therefore, enough to say that we have not been shown that the Court of Wards was under a statutory obligation is this case to hand over to Rani Shankaramma possession of the properties which are in their control. We are accordingly unable to maintain also the portion of the order of the High Court directing the estate to be handed over to her.17. This undoubtedly leads to a very anomalous situation and may have the effect of indefinitely continuing the administration of the Court of Wards over the property until such time as one party or the other goes to the Court and obtains release or until the Court of Wards releases the same on its own responsibility or by filing an interpleader suit. These are matters however which do not concern the Court in an application for issue of a writ.