1937 (5) TMI 8 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
Ownership rights over Bijni Raj, succession disputes, insanity claim of Raja Jogendra, applications for amendment of pleadings.

Analysis:

1. Ownership Rights over Bijni Raj:
Raja Kumud Narain Bhup owned Bijni Raj, passing it to widows Rani Siddeswari and Rani Abheyeswari. Raja Jogendra Narain Bhup was nominated as Raja of Bijni Raj by Rani Abheyeswari in 1895. Disputes arose, leading to multiple suits and claims regarding the ownership of Bijni Raj. The Bijni Succession Act in 1931 declared Raja Jogendra as the proprietor with Bhairabendra as the successor after his death.

2. Succession Disputes:
Various suits were filed by different parties, including Bhairabendra and Samarendra, alleging Raja Jogendra's insanity and disqualification from succession. Compromises were reached in some suits, determining ownership rights over Bijni Raj. The executor of Rani Abheyeswari's estate also filed a suit for declaration of title to Bijni Raj.

3. Insanity Claim of Raja Jogendra:
Allegations were made that Raja Jogendra became insane before attaining majority in 1902. Applications for amending pleadings were filed in 1936 to include this claim. The court considered the delay and bona fides of the applications, emphasizing the need for documentary evidence to support the insanity claim. The court ultimately allowed the amendments, directing the pleadings to be amended accordingly.

4. Applications for Amendment of Pleadings:
Raja Jogendra and Bhairabendra sought amendments to their pleadings to include the claim of Raja Jogendra's insanity before 1902. The court rejected the initial applications citing lack of evidence. However, upon review, the court found that the amendments did not change the cause of action or subject matter of the suits, and allowed the amendments to proceed. The court directed the lower court to amend the pleadings as per the proposed amendments.

In conclusion, the High Court of Calcutta allowed the applications for amendment of pleadings regarding Raja Jogendra's alleged insanity before attaining majority. The court emphasized the importance of documentary evidence to support such claims. The judgment clarified the grounds for allowing amendments in pleadings and directed the lower court to proceed with the amendments.