1932 (4) TMI 16 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Right of succession to the Jheria Raj estate.
2. Validity of bantannamas executed by the widows.
3. Joint family status of the late Raja and the defendant.
4. Incorporation of self-acquired properties with the impartible estate.
5. Entitlement to moveable properties and accrued rents, royalties, and other moneys.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Right of Succession to the Jheria Raj Estate:

The primary issue was the right of succession to the Jheria Raj estate, which was governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu law and was impartible by custom, with succession determined by lineal primogeniture. The last holder, Raja Durga Prasad, died childless, leaving three widows and a second cousin, Shiba Prasad Singh. The plaintiffs (widows) claimed the estate as heirs, while the defendant (Shiba Prasad Singh) claimed it by survivorship as a member of the joint family. The court affirmed that the estate, being impartible, passed by survivorship to the defendant, as the family was found to be joint at the time of the Raja's death.

2. Validity of Bantannamas Executed by the Widows:

The widows had executed bantannamas relinquishing their claims to the estate in favor of Shiba Prasad Singh. The plaintiffs alleged these were obtained by fraud and undue influence. Both the Subordinate Judge and the High Court found that the bantannamas were indeed obtained by fraud and undue influence, and thus, they were set aside.

3. Joint Family Status of the Late Raja and the Defendant:

A significant issue was whether the late Raja and the defendant were members of a joint undivided Hindu family at the time of the Raja's death. The Subordinate Judge and the High Court found that the family was joint, despite a difference in their findings regarding joint worship. The High Court held that separation in worship alone was insufficient to establish a complete separation, thus confirming the joint family status.

4. Incorporation of Self-Acquired Properties with the Impartible Estate:

The court considered whether the holder of an impartible estate could incorporate other properties with the estate. It was affirmed that such incorporation was permissible under Hindu law, provided there was a clear intention to do so. The court found that the properties acquired by Raja Rash Behari Lal, Raja Jaymangal, and the late Raja Durga Prasad were incorporated with the impartible estate, thus passing to the defendant.

5. Entitlement to Moveable Properties and Accrued Rents, Royalties, and Other Moneys:

The Subordinate Judge awarded the plaintiffs the jewelry, cash, and most of the moveable properties, while the defendant retained certain furniture and other articles. The High Court affirmed this with minor variations. The High Court also awarded the plaintiffs the rents, royalties, and other moneys accrued during the late Raja's lifetime but realized by the defendant after his death. The defendant's contention that these claims were not properly made in the plaint and that the Subordinate Judge lacked jurisdiction was rejected. The court held that the claims were based on the same cause of action, thus falling within the court's jurisdiction.

Separate Judgments and Modifications:

The court provided specific directions and modifications to the High Court's decree:

1. Declared the defendant entitled to the immovable properties in Schedule kha, items 1 to 8.
2. Directed an inquiry to ascertain whether any other immovable properties left by the late Raja were acquired before or after the will's date, with properties acquired before passing to the defendant and those after to the plaintiffs unless incorporated with the estate.
3. Declared the defendant entitled to credit for a sum paid to the plaintiffs, with interest.
4. Declared the plaintiffs entitled to all furniture, furnishings, and equipment left by the late Raja, to be delivered by the defendant or compensated in value.
5. Directed the High Court to inquire into and determine specific matters, including any additional claims by the plaintiffs for maintenance.

Costs and Further Proceedings:

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay one-third of the defendant's costs for all three appeals and the costs of two earlier appeals, with the costs of further proceedings to be dealt with by the High Court.