1863 (6) TMI 1 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Nature of the Zemindary of Shivagunga
2. Rule of succession under Hindu law
3. Self-acquired vs. common family property
4. Validity of the will and possession of Zemindary
5. Legal proceedings and judgments in prior suits
6. Rights of widows and daughters under Hindu law
7. Procedural issues in the appeal process

Detailed Analysis:

1. Nature of the Zemindary of Shivagunga
The Zemindary of Shivagunga, created in 1730, is described as a Principality-impartible and capable of enjoyment by only one family member at a time. The rule of succession to it follows the general Hindu law prevalent in that part of India, with qualifications flowing from its impartible character.

2. Rule of Succession under Hindu Law
The court examined whether the Zemindar and his nephews were members of an undivided Hindu family. If the Zemindary was part of the common family property, a nephew would succeed. If separate, it would pass to a widow or daughter. The widows and daughters argued that the Zemindary was self-acquired and should descend as separate property.

3. Self-acquired vs. Common Family Property
The material question was whether the Zemindary was self-acquired or part of the common family stock. The court concluded that the Zemindary was the self-acquired property of Gowery Vallabha Taver, based on the terms of the grant and the circumstances of its acquisition.

4. Validity of the Will and Possession of Zemindary
Moottoo Vadooga obtained possession of the Zemindary after Gowery Vallabha Taver's death, allegedly supported by a will, which the Appellant's side treated as a forgery. The Respondent did not treat the document as material to his title. Moottoo Vadooga's possession was later contested, leading to prolonged litigation.

5. Legal Proceedings and Judgments in Prior Suits
The litigation history is divided into three periods:
- First period (1832-1844): Initial suits dismissed; the Sudder Court's decree favored the widows.
- Second period (1844-1850): Anga Mootoo Natchiar's second suit dismissed; appeal pending at her death.
- Third period (1850 onwards): Multiple inconsistent orders by the Sudder Court regarding who could prosecute the appeal.

6. Rights of Widows and Daughters under Hindu Law
The court examined the widow's right to inherit in default of male issue, as per the Mitacshara and other Hindu law authorities. It concluded that the widow's right of inheritance extends to the husband's separate acquisitions, even if the family was undivided.

7. Procedural Issues in the Appeal Process
The Sudder Court issued conflicting orders on who could prosecute the appeal after Anga Mootoo Natchiar's death. The Appellant was denied both the benefit of the appeal against the 1847 decree and a fair trial in a new suit. The court emphasized that the decree of 1847 was not final, and the appeal should have been heard on its merits.

Conclusion:
The court recommended reversing the decrees and orders complained of in the appeal. It declared that the Appellant and her sisters were entitled to prosecute the appeal and recover the Zemindary. The case was remitted to the Sudder Court to carry these declarations into effect, with no costs awarded for the suit of 1856, the appeal, or the proceedings below. Any costs incurred by the Appellant were to be refunded.