9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement of Indarjit Mal to succeed to the impartible Raj of Majhauli. 2. Proof of the pedigree of Balbhadra Narain Mal. 3. Validity of the registration of the sale-deed dated October 30, 1922. Detailed Analysis: 1. Entitlement of Indarjit Mal to Succeed to the Impartible Raj of Majhauli: The primary issue was whether Indarjit Mal was entitled to succeed to the impartible Raj of Majhauli upon the death of Raja Kaushal Kishor Prasad Mal on January 7, 1911. The respondents claimed that Indarjit Mal, as the nearest surviving male agnate, was entitled to succeed according to the customary rule of succession. The District Judge initially concluded that the two branches had been separate for at least seventy years, thus denying Indarjit Mal's claim. However, the High Court reversed this decision, holding that the appellant failed to prove that the junior branch had relinquished their right to succeed by survivorship. The High Court emphasized that the burden lay on the appellant to show a definite renunciation of the right of succession by the junior branch, which was not established. 2. Proof of the Pedigree of Balbhadra Narain Mal: The second issue was whether the pedigree of Balbhadra Narain Mal, from whom the respondents derived their title, was sufficiently proven. Both the District Court and the High Court found in favor of the respondents on this issue. The courts accepted certified copies of a decree from a suit in 1805 and associated pedigrees as evidence. The courts deemed these documents admissible under Sections 35 and 13 of the Indian Evidence Act, considering them as entries in public records and relevant admissions. 3. Validity of the Registration of the Sale-Deed: The third issue was whether the registration of the sale-deed dated October 30, 1922, was valid. The sale-deed included a one-third share in a sitting-room in Gorakhpur, which was insignificant compared to the value of the four villages also included in the deed. Both the District Judge and the High Court found that the inclusion of this item was merely to facilitate registration in Gorakhpur. The High Court, however, upheld the registration, stating that the parties had kept within the letter of the law. The Board, upon reviewing the facts, concluded that the inclusion of the sitting-room was a device to evade the Registration Act. They determined that the so-called sale of the sitting-room was fictitious and intended only to enable registration in Gorakhpur. Consequently, the appeal succeeded on this issue, leading to the restoration of the District Judge's decree. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed on the third issue regarding the validity of the registration of the sale-deed. The decree of the High Court was discharged, and the decree of the District Judge was restored. The appellant was awarded costs for the appeal to the High Court and this appeal.
|
