1960 (3) TMI 73 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the certificate issued under s. 10 of the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, 1874.
2. Jurisdiction of the court to cancel a decree based on the certificate.
3. Interpretation of relevant statutory provisions post-constitutional changes.
4. Application of res judicata in the context of the certificate issuance.
5. Applicability of the Act to properties assigned as remuneration to the office of Patilki.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The petition under s. 10 of the Act sought cancellation of a decree granted to the respondent, claiming rights to the office of Patilki and Watan lands. The petitioner obtained a certificate under s. 10, arguing for decree cancellation based on it.
2. The respondent, as an adopted son, had obtained a decree through a legal process, leading to an Order-in-Council in 1949 entitling him to a share in the properties, including the 11 lands in question. The petitioner contested this entitlement under the Act's provisions.
3. The High Court initially upheld the respondent's challenge to the certificate's validity due to incorrect addressing. However, after subsequent reissuance addressed to the correct court, the certificate's validity was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner.
4. The issue of res judicata was raised by the respondent, contending that the High Court's decision rendered the present certificate invalid. The court rejected this argument, emphasizing the necessity of addressing the court that passed the decree.
5. Post-constitutional changes, the jurisdictional shift from the Privy Council to the Federal Court and eventually to the Supreme Court was analyzed. The court determined that the certificate issued to the Supreme Court was valid, enabling decree cancellation under s. 10 of the Act.
6. The Act's provisions, particularly s. 10, mandated the court to cancel the decree concerning properties assigned as remuneration to the Patilki office upon the issuance of a valid certificate, addressing the objections raised against the certificate's validity.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the petition, canceling the decree related to the office of Patilki and the attached Watan lands at Kirtgeri as specified in the valid certificate issued under s. 10 of the Act. The court's decision was based on the correct interpretation of statutory provisions, post-constitutional jurisdictional changes, and the application of relevant legal principles.