https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300253 A dispute over Watandari rights turned on whether adoption, as a question of personal status, could be determined only by a civil court; the court held that revenue could decide watan-related matters but not conclusively adjudicate adoption, so civil jurisdiction was not excluded. A prior civil finding that Vithu was not the adopted son had been directly and substantially in issue, decided on evidence, and affirmed on appeal, so it operated as res judicata and could not be reopened. Because the regrant order had attained finality and the statute provided no power of review or de novo enquiry, the State and Sub-Divisional Officer lacked authority to direct a fresh enquiry on the same foundational issue. en-us Fri, 09 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Jan 2022 11:33:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300253 A dispute over Watandari rights turned on whether adoption, as a question of personal status, could be determined only by a civil court; the court held that revenue could decide watan-related matters but not conclusively adjudicate adoption, so civil jurisdiction was not excluded. A prior civil finding that Vithu was not the adopted son had been directly and substantially in issue, decided on evidence, and affirmed on appeal, so it operated as res judicata and could not be reopened. Because the regrant order had attained finality and the statute provided no power of review or de novo enquiry, the State and Sub-Divisional Officer lacked authority to direct a fresh enquiry on the same foundational issue. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 09 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300253