of which this finding 11as been recorded. The question that falls for decision is whether the Mahiarao of Kota by his order dated 22nd January, 1938, could validly cha,nge the nature of the property, make it impartible and governed by the rule of primogeniture when the property was already joint family property. In deciding this question, the crucial point is that the Maharao of Kota was an 8 independent and sovereign Ruler whose orders in his State were law. He bad absolute power to make any orders, and the Order dated 22nd January, 1938 has, therefore, to be given the force of law which, when it was passed, could not be challenged as invalid. Counsel for the appellants, however, urged that all orders passed by an independent and sovereign Ruler do not have the force of law. It is only those orders which purport to lay down a law for c the State which cannot be .challenged and which would remain in force even after the merger of the Kota State in India and after the enforcement of the Cqilstitution under Art. 372 of the Constitu-. tion. His submission was that, when passing the Order dated 22nd January, 1938, the Ruler was only exercising executive powers of directing mutation of names and was not exercising any legislative D powers. The nature of the Order passed by him, however, shows that this submissiqn cannot be accepted. No doubt, that Order was made on a report which was put up before the Maharao for deciding who should be held to be the owner of the Jagir when. Purshottam Raoji died. The Order shows that the Maharao tc•ol:: notice of the fact that the Sanad had been granted in the name of E Lalaji Ramchandra and his eldest son Govind Rao on executing a deed of release in respect of the debt, but it added that, when the unpaid debt was "changed in the form of a Jagir and no special condition was laid down regarding it and the name of only the eldest son was written in the 'Sanad' though ·another brother was present there, it has to be held that the Jagir was intf\Ilded to be given on the same rules. on which the other J agirs wpre granted F The Order then proceeds to take notice of the fact that, though the mutation should have been in the name of Chandrakant after the death of Ganpat Rao, a practice had developed of entering more than one person as the holders of this Jagir. It appears that, in order to give effect to the oriITTmaJ intention that this Jagir should be governed by the same rules as all other Jagirs, lhe Maharao G proceeded to lay down that this Jagir s]lould also be impartible and should be held by the eldest member of the family in the eldest branch. The Ruler considered it -desirable to make this Order. because it was envisaged that, "if the entire Jagir was distn"buted amongi;t all the members of the family, then e'len the name of 'Thikana' would disappear. It was considered desirable that this H Jagir should be governed according to the custom of the States in Rajputana including Kota State under which the eldest son of the senior branch alone was entitled to hold the property. Thereafter, the Maharao proceeded to lay down that this Jagir should be L 10 Sup CI (NP)70-9
