1963 (3) TMI 73 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Impartibility of the Vizianagram Estate and its properties.
2. Incorporation of subsequently acquired properties into the impartible estate.
3. Classification and partition of jewels, including claims of regalia and stridhan.
4. Ownership and partition of specific buildings.
5. Application of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948.
6. Claims and entitlements of the respective parties.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Impartibility of the Vizianagram Estate and its Properties:
The court reaffirmed that an estate impartible by custom cannot be the separate or exclusive property of the holder. It remains part of the joint estate of the undivided Hindu family, with rights of survivorship still applicable. The estate's impartibility was recognized under the Madras Impartible Estates Act II of 1904, which included all accretions made prior to 1897.

2. Incorporation of Subsequently Acquired Properties:
The court held that the principle of incorporation applies to immovable properties, where the holder's intention to incorporate such properties into the impartible estate must be proven. The Prince of Wales Market and permanent leasehold rights in nine villages were deemed incorporated into the estate, supported by evidence of the holder's intention and conduct. However, the Admirality House, Waltair House, and Elk House were not incorporated as the plaintiff failed to prove the incorporation intention.

3. Classification and Partition of Jewels:
The court recognized the family custom treating certain jewels as regalia, making them impartible. The plaintiff's claim for 38 jewels as regalia was upheld, supported by historical documents and family conduct. Defendant No. 4's claim to 12 jewels as stridhan was also recognized by consent, subject to certain conditions.

4. Ownership and Partition of Specific Buildings:
The plaintiff's claim that five buildings outside the Vizianagram Zamindari limits were impartible was rejected. The court found no evidence of incorporation intention for these buildings. The buildings included the Admirality House, Waltair House, Elk House, Little Shoreham, and the Highlands.

5. Application of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948:
The court clarified that the buildings falling under Section 18(4) of the Act vest in the person who owned them immediately before the notified date, which refers to the landholder. Defendants 1 and 2 could not claim a share in these buildings as they were not considered landholders under the Act.

6. Claims and Entitlements of the Respective Parties:
The court addressed the claims of the respective parties:
- Plaintiff's appeals regarding the five buildings were dismissed.
- Defendants 1 and 2's appeals challenging the impartibility of certain properties and jewels were dismissed.
- Defendant No. 4's appeal was resolved by consent, recognizing her claim to 12 jewels as stridhan.

Conclusion:
The court affirmed the impartibility of the Vizianagram Estate and recognized the incorporation of certain properties into the estate. The classification of jewels as regalia was upheld, and specific claims of stridhan were recognized. The plaintiff's claims regarding the incorporation of certain buildings were rejected. The application of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, was clarified, and the respective claims and entitlements of the parties were addressed comprehensively.