1926 (11) TMI 2 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity and effect of the will of Raja Udai Pratap Sinha Deo Somyaji dated June 17, 1907, in light of the Oudh Settled Estates Act declaration made on May 21, 1908.
2. Plaintiff's entitlement to properties listed in Lists A, B, and C by virtue of the will.
3. Existence and validity of a family custom of single heir succession.
4. Whether houses in Bahraich and Lucknow are accretions to the taluqa and governed by the Oudh Settled Estates Act.
5. Ownership of moveable property listed in List D and whether it constitutes accretion to the taluqa.
6. Nature of the sums listed in List E and F and whether they are accretions to the taluqa or stridhan.
7. Heir to the stridhan of Maharani Murar Kumari Devi.
8. Ownership of Government securities and cash held by the Imperial Bank, Benares.
9. Relief entitled to the plaintiff.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity and Effect of the Will
The court held that the will of Raja Udai Pratap Sinha Deo Somyaji, executed on June 17, 1907, and registered on June 22, 1907, was initially valid. However, the subsequent declaration made by the Raja on May 21, 1908, under the Oudh Settled Estates Act (2 of 1900) rendered the will inoperative concerning the settled estate. The declaration restricted the Raja's power to transfer or bequeath the settled estate beyond his lifetime. The settled estate, therefore, could only be bequeathed as an impartible estate to one person and not to a stranger, which the plaintiff was considered to be under the Mitakshara law.

Issue 2: Plaintiff's Entitlement to Properties
The court found that the will was valid concerning the properties listed as No. 90 in List A and the entire property in List B, as these were not part of the settled estate. The plaintiff was entitled to these properties by virtue of the will. However, the plaintiff was not entitled to the properties in List A (Nos. 1-89 and 91) and certain houses in List C, as these were part of the settled estate and the will's provisions in this regard were inoperative.

Issue 3: Family Custom of Single Heir Succession
The court found no evidence supporting the existence of a family custom of single heir succession. Therefore, the claim that the bequest would fail in respect of all properties if it failed for a portion was rejected.

Issue 4: Accretion of Houses to the Taluqa
The court held that houses situated within the settled estate villages (Items Nos. 2-13 and 20-32 in List C) were accretions to the taluqa and governed by the declaration under the Oudh Settled Estates Act. Consequently, these houses would go along with the taluqa to Defendant No. 1. The Bhinga palace (Item No. 1) was also part of the settled estate.

Issue 5: Ownership of Moveable Property (List D)
The court concluded that the moveable property listed in List D, which was in the possession of Maharani Murar Kumari Devi, constituted her stridhan and not an accretion to the taluqa. Thus, it would go to her stridhan heirs.

Issue 6: Nature of Sums in List E and F
The court determined that the sum of Rs. 54,680-3-9 in List E, representing savings by Maharani Murar Kumari Devi, constituted her stridhan and not an accretion to the taluqa. The sum of Rs. 21,320-3-9 collected by Defendant No. 1 after her death was also deemed to be part of the estate and not the plaintiff's entitlement.

Issue 7: Heir to Stridhan of Maharani Murar Kumari Devi
The court held that the plaintiff was not an heir to the stridhan of Maharani Murar Kumari Devi under the Mitakshara law. The stridhan would go to the rightful heirs as per the order of succession under the Mitakshara.

Issue 8: Ownership of Government Securities and Cash (List F)
The court concluded that the Government securities and cash held by the Imperial Bank, Benares, constituted the stridhan of Maharani Murar Kumari Devi. Therefore, these would go to her stridhan heirs and not to the plaintiff.

Issue 9: Relief Entitlement
The plaintiff was entitled to properties listed as No. 90 in List A and the entire property in List B. The claim to other properties, including those in the settled estate and stridhan of Maharani Murar Kumari Devi, was denied.

Conclusion:
The court's judgment provided a detailed analysis of the issues, affirming the validity of the will concerning certain properties while invalidating it for the settled estate. The court recognized the stridhan of Maharani Murar Kumari Devi and determined the rightful heirs under the Mitakshara law. The plaintiff's claims were partially upheld, granting her entitlement to specific properties while denying others.