1927 (11) TMI 4 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Zamindari of Amgaon was conferred with conditions of impartibility and lineal primogeniture.
2. Whether the Bhonsla Raj grants always carried conditions of impartibility and single succession.
3. Whether the devolution of Zamindari property in the family of Pandoo and Kolhu was governed by the rule of primogeniture.
4. Whether there was a territorial custom that Zamindari property is impartible, inalienable, and devolves by the rule of primogeniture.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Impartibility and Lineal Primogeniture Condition:
The District Judge concluded that the Amgaon estate was granted by the Bhonsla or Mahratta Government of Nagpur to Sonba (or Sona) without any conditions regarding devolution. The appellate Court, however, based its conclusion on certain official reports, which it considered conclusive, erroneously treating opinions in these reports as final. The correct legal principle is that the onus lies on the party alleging a custom different from the ordinary law of inheritance to prove it by clear and unambiguous evidence. The appellate Court's method was found to be inconvenient and potentially erroneous.

2. Bhonsla Raj Grants and Conditions:
The District Judge found no evidence supporting the plaintiff's claim that Bhonsla Raj grants always carried conditions of succession by lineal primogeniture and inalienability. The appellate Court did not specifically address this issue in its findings, but it impliedly found in favor of the plaintiff by accepting the official reports' conclusions.

3. Rule of Primogeniture in Pandoo and Kolhu Family:
The plaintiff claimed a family custom of succession by lineal primogeniture derived from the Kampta Zamindari. The District Judge found that the family custom was not proved, as every instance of devolution in the Amgaon family followed the ordinary rules of Hindu law. The appellate Court's decision did not alter this finding, and the higher court agreed with the District Judge's conclusion.

4. Territorial Custom of Impartibility:
The District Judge conducted an exhaustive survey of evidence regarding territorial custom and concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove the territorial custom of impartibility, inalienability, and devolution by primogeniture. The appellate Court's reliance on official reports to conclude that the Amgaon estate was of the nature of a raj and therefore impartible was found to be incorrect. The higher court noted that the reports did not uniformly support the view that all Zamindaris were of the same nature or status. The classification of estates by officials like Sir Richard Temple and Sir Reginald Craddock showed differences in status and rights among various Zamindaris.

Conclusion:
The higher court agreed with the District Judge's findings on issues 1, 2, and 10, determining that the Amgaon Zamindari was not impartible by the terms of the grant, territorial custom, or its inherent nature. On issue 9, the court found no evidence of a family custom of impartibility in the Amgaon family. The judgment and decree of the Judicial Commissioners were set aside, and the District Judge's judgment was restored, with costs awarded to the appellant.