Appellant's Hereditary Rights Claim Dismissed: Appointment Not Hereditary

The court dismissed the appellant's claim to hereditary rights to the office of Mutawalli, affirming it as a government appointment and not hereditary. Historical evidence, lack of recognition by the British Government post-cession, and interpretation of relevant laws and previous judgments led to the dismissal of the appeal with costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Hereditary nature of the office of Mutawalli.
2. Validity and authenticity of historical documents (farmans and sanads).
3. Recognition of hereditary rights by the British Government post-cession.
4. Applicability of the principle of res judicata.
5. Interpretation of the Act of 1936 concerning the office of Mutawalli.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Hereditary Nature of the Office of Mutawalli:
The appellant claimed that the office of Mutawalli of the Durgah Khawaja Sahib Ajmer was hereditary in his family. The court examined historical records and found no evidence to support this claim. The office of Mutawalli was historically a government appointment, separate from the hereditary position of Sajadanashin. The court concluded that there was no justification for the suggestion that the office of Mutawalli had become hereditary by custom or by any other means.

2. Validity and Authenticity of Historical Documents (Farmans and Sanads):
The appellant relied on several historical documents to support his claim. The first document, a farman of Emperor Mohammad Shah, was deemed suspicious and not authentic. The second document, a sanad of Daulat Rao Sindhia from 1794, did not support the appellant's case as it illustrated the ruling power's right to appoint the Mutawalli. The third document, a sanad of 1813, was considered genuine but did not establish a hereditary right as it was not recognized by the British Government post-cession.

3. Recognition of Hereditary Rights by the British Government Post-cession:
The court emphasized that after the cession of Ajmer to the British in 1818, any rights or offices had to be recognized by the new sovereign power. The British Government did not recognize the hereditary right of the appellant's family to the office of Mutawalli. The British authorities consistently treated the office as a government appointment, and various orders and actions taken by them were inconsistent with the recognition of hereditary rights.

4. Applicability of the Principle of Res Judicata:
The appellant argued that previous judgments established the hereditary nature of the office and thus the matter was res judicata. The court rejected this plea, stating that the issue of hereditary right was incidental and not the substance of the previous suits. Moreover, the Durgah Committee, the primary interested party, was not a party to the previous proceedings, and thus the plea of res judicata could not be supported.

5. Interpretation of the Act of 1936 Concerning the Office of Mutawalli:
The appellant contended that the Act of 1936 recognized the hereditary nature of the office. The court disagreed, stating that the Act did not imply any recognition of hereditary rights. The Act provided for the administration and control of the Durgah Endowment by a Committee, which included the Mutawalli as a manager but did not establish the office as hereditary.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the appellant's claim to hereditary rights to the office of Mutawalli was unfounded. The appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming that the office of Mutawalli was a government appointment and not hereditary. The court's decision was based on historical evidence, the lack of recognition by the British Government, and the interpretation of relevant laws and previous judgments.

---