1952 (3) TMI 47 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of the adoption of Lal Durga Saran Singh.
2. Existence and validity of the alleged family settlement.
3. Right of Rani Krishna Kuar to make an adoption.
4. Customary rights claimed by Rani Fateh Kuar.
5. Entitlement to maintenance allowance.
6. Right to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 133 of the Constitution.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Adoption of Lal Durga Saran Singh:
The trial court found that Lal Durga Saran Singh was validly adopted by Rani Krishna Kuar to her husband, Raja Ram Chandra Singh. This finding was affirmed by the High Court, which upheld the trial court's decision regarding the adoption.

2. Existence and Validity of the Alleged Family Settlement:
The applicant, Rani Fateh Kuar, claimed that there was a family settlement under which Lal Durga Saran Singh was adopted and that his rights to the estate were deferred until after the death of Rani Krishna Kuar. However, the trial court did not believe in the existence or validity of this family settlement, and this finding was also affirmed by the High Court.

3. Right of Rani Krishna Kuar to Make an Adoption:
The trial court found that Rani Krishna Kuar had no right to nominate a successor or make an adoption. This finding was contested by Rani Fateh Kuar but was ultimately upheld by the High Court.

4. Customary Rights Claimed by Rani Fateh Kuar:
Rani Fateh Kuar also claimed customary rights as the widow of Lal Durga Saran Singh. The trial court found no evidence to support the existence of such a custom, and this finding was affirmed by the High Court.

5. Entitlement to Maintenance Allowance:
The trial court had initially decreed that Rani Fateh Kuar was entitled to a maintenance allowance of Rs. 3,000 per year and allowed her to continue living in her current residence. However, the High Court, upon appeal by Raja Durbijai Singh, set aside this part of the trial court's decree, dismissing the suit in its entirety and disallowing the maintenance allowance.

6. Right to Appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 133 of the Constitution:
Rani Fateh Kuar applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court's decree varied the trial court's decree, thus entitling her to appeal as of right under Article 133 of the Constitution. The High Court considered the divergence of judicial opinion on whether an appeal lies when the High Court has affirmed the trial court's decision on certain points but reversed it on others. The High Court concluded that the applicant had a right to appeal to the Supreme Court because the High Court's decree did not entirely affirm the trial court's decision, particularly regarding the maintenance allowance.

Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, certifying that the case fulfilled the requirements of Article 133 of the Constitution and declaring it a fit case for appeal. The judgment emphasized that the entire subject matter of the proposed appeal should be considered as a whole to determine whether there is affirmance or variance of the trial court's decision.