Hereditary Mutawalli rights fail absent sovereign recognition, res judicata, or statutory preservation of family appointment.

A claimed hereditary right to the office of Mutawalli was not established because the materials did not prove a custom of hereditary succession, and the pre-cession farmans and sanads did not survive transfer of sovereignty without recognition by the new sovereign. The earlier litigation did not bar the claim, since hereditary title was only incidentally considered and the interested body was not shown to have been a party or privy. The later statute also did not recognise or preserve any hereditary family right to appointment, as its administrative scheme did not confer such a statutory entitlement.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the office of Mutawalli was hereditary in the appellant's family by custom or by reason of the pre-cession farmans and sanads; (ii) whether the earlier litigation operated as res judicata on the question of hereditary right; (iii) whether the later statute recognised or preserved any hereditary right in the appellant's family.

Issue (i): Whether the office of Mutawalli was hereditary in the appellant's family by custom or by reason of the pre-cession farmans and sanads.

Analysis: The materials relied upon did not establish a custom of hereditary succession. The earlier documents showed, at most, that particular members of the family had at different times held office under the ruling power. The grant made before the cession of Ajmer could not, after the transfer of sovereignty, support a continuing hereditary title unless it had been recognised by the British Government, and the record showed the contrary. The appointments and removals after 1818 were treated as matters within governmental control, not as incidents of an inherited family right.

Conclusion: The alleged hereditary right by custom or pre-cession grant was not proved.

Issue (ii): Whether the earlier litigation operated as res judicata on the question of hereditary right.

Analysis: The earlier suit was brought to test the defendant's competence to remain in office and not to determine, as between the present parties, a direct and substantial issue of hereditary title. Any finding on hereditary right was incidental. The parties to that litigation were not the Durgah Committee or persons shown to represent it, and the body mainly interested in the question was therefore not bound by those decisions.

Conclusion: The plea of res judicata failed.

Issue (iii): Whether the later statute recognised or preserved any hereditary right in the appellant's family.

Analysis: The statute governing the Durgah administration did not contain language from which a hereditary right of appointment to the office of Mutawalli could be extracted. Its scheme for committee administration and management through the Mutawalli did not amount to statutory recognition of the appellant's asserted family right.

Conclusion: No statutory recognition of hereditary right was established.

Final Conclusion: The appellant failed on all material grounds, and the claim to a hereditary right to the office of Mutawalli was not sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A pre-cession grant or office-holding history does not continue as an enforceable hereditary right after sovereignty changes unless the new sovereign recognises it, and an incidental finding in earlier proceedings not directly and substantially in issue does not operate as res judicata against persons who were not parties or privies.

---