Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. It is necessary by way of preface to an examination of these documents to remember that for more than 150 years the question which their" Lordships have now to decide has been the subject of dispute in India.

11. The first of the documents relied on by the appellant purports :to be a farman of the Emperor Mohammad Shah who reigned from 1719 to 1748 A.D. The farman appears to have been issued on a date corresponding to' 1759 in the .Christian era, a fact suspicious in. itself, and by it the office of Mutawalli of the "two tombs of Hazrat," situated in Ajmer:, was entrusted to one, Sayed Mohammad Umar, who was thereinafter referred to as the permanent Mutawailli. Syed Mohammad Umar is claimed by the appellant to be the elder brother of his great grandfather to the 5th degree. To the District Judge this Farman did not appear to be above suspicion and it was. not accepted as authentic by the Judicial Commissioner. It seems to their Lordships sufficient to say that, whether or not it is a genuine document, it does not at all advance the appellant's claim that the office of Mutawalli is hereditary in his family At the most it establishes that at a certain date the office was held by a particular member of his family.

29. A point is now reached in the history of this long and unfortunate dispute upon which the appellant strongly relies.

30. In the year 1880, two years or so after the probationary appointment, two persons, the President and another member of the Durgah Committee, being aggrieved as they alleged by the maladministration by Amir Ali as Mutawalli first obtained leave under Section 18 of the Act of 1863 and then brought a suit against Amir Ali in the Court of the Assistant Commissioner, Ajmer, praying that he might be dismissed from his office on account of incompetency, dishonesty, negligence of duty and disobedience of orders. This, it may be observed, is relief which it is proper for a competent Court to grant under the Act of 1863 if the circumstances justify it. But it is difficult to see how under the Act the question of a hereditary right could properly be raised. Nor did the plaintiffs raise it. But in his defence Amir Ali raised the question again, the Assistant Commissioner (Mr. Lasalle) rehearsed the whole case, framed two issues of which the first was "Is the office of Mutawalli of a hereditary nature or not?" and decided that issue by saying that "the appointment is a hereditary one, the notification under Section 3 of the Act XX of 1863 notwithstanding." Having done so, he nevertheless, considering Amir Ali not a fit person: to remain in charge of the office, directed his removal therefrom, but, since he considered that his position as Mutawalli was hereditary and that he could by care, study and application render himself fit for the discharge of his duties, he further directed that if at any time he satisfied the civil Court of his fitness for the office he might be reinstated in his ancestral position, and in the meantime he directed the appointment of a Naib Mutawalli.

31. From the judgment of Mr. Lasalle both parties appealed to the Commissioner, who, while upholding the view that "the Lower Court has cited sufficient evidence to warrant the finding that this office is (subject to the fitness of the incumbent) hereditary," varied the decision by postponing the time for appointing a Naib Mutawalli for two years from that date, and directing that if within that time certain arrears were not collected, the Committee would ha at liberty to appoint the Naib as directed by the lower Court.