1916 (5) TMI 1 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Right to possession of the Agori Barhar Raj estate.
2. Nature of the estate (impartible or partible).
3. Validity of the grants to Adil Shah and Ran Bahadur Shah.
4. Status of the family regarding jointness or separation.
5. Nature of Rani Bed Saran Kuar's possession and her rights.
6. Succession to the gaddi (throne) of the estate.
7. Validity of the transfers and gifts made by Rani Bed Saran Kuar.
8. Right to the malikana grant of Rs. 8,001.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Right to Possession of the Agori Barhar Raj Estate:
The primary issue was the right to possession of the Agori Barhar Raj estate, a valuable property in Mirzapur. The plaintiff, the eldest son of Babu Jagannath Prasad, claimed the right to the estate following the death of Rani Bed Saran Kuar in 1913. The rival claimant, Defendant No. 1, Babu Baijnath Prasad, was the younger brother of the plaintiff's father. The estate had been under the control of Rani Bed Saran Kuar since the death of her husband, Raja Kesho Saran Shah, in 1871.

2. Nature of the Estate (Impartible or Partible):
The court determined that the estate was impartible. This conclusion was based on the historical context and the terms of the grants made by Warren Hastings, which restored the estate to Adil Shah. The estate was historically treated as a Raj, with the senior member of the family occupying the gaddi and the junior members styled as "Babus." The court noted that the estate's impartibility was consistent with the custom and usage of the family and the terms of the grants.

3. Validity of the Grants to Adil Shah and Ran Bahadur Shah:
The grants to Adil Shah and Ran Bahadur Shah were scrutinized to determine their nature. The court concluded that the grants were not personal and did not render the estate their self-acquired property. The grants were intended to restore the family to their ancestral estate, which was historically impartible. The court emphasized that the restoration of the estate should be attributed to the action of Warren Hastings, and the estate should be considered joint family property.

4. Status of the Family Regarding Jointness or Separation:
The court examined whether the family was joint or separate. It was determined that the family remained joint, with the estate being enjoyed by the whole family through the occupant of the gaddi. The court found no evidence of an intention to separate, and the family continued to be joint in worship and other respects. The court noted that the family custom provided for the maintenance of junior members through the assignment of specific property.

5. Nature of Rani Bed Saran Kuar's Possession and Her Rights:
Rani Bed Saran Kuar's possession of the estate was examined in light of her rights as a Hindu widow. The court found that her possession could be legally explained either by an oral Will of her husband or by family custom. The Rani's possession was not considered adverse, and she held the estate for her life. The court noted that the family allowed her to succeed, which was consistent with the custom of the family.

6. Succession to the Gaddi (Throne) of the Estate:
The court addressed the question of who was entitled to the gaddi after the death of Rani Bed Saran Kuar. The plaintiff argued that the estate was joint and that he, as the eldest son of Babu Jagannath Prasad, should succeed. The court concluded that the estate was impartible and that the succession should be determined by the rule of primogeniture, with the nearest co-parcener of the senior line succeeding. The plaintiff, being the nearest co-parcener of the senior line, was entitled to the gaddi.

7. Validity of the Transfers and Gifts Made by Rani Bed Saran Kuar:
The court examined the validity of the transfers and gifts made by Rani Bed Saran Kuar, including the deed of relinquishment in favor of Defendant No. 1 and the lease of 67 villages. The court found that the Rani had no right to make these transfers, as she held the estate for her life and could not dispose of it by Will or deed of relinquishment. The court declared these transfers invalid.

8. Right to the Malikana Grant of Rs. 8,001:
The court addressed the issue of the malikana grant of Rs. 8,001, which had been granted to Adil Shah and continued to be enjoyed by the family. The court found that the grant was intended to enable the holder of the estate to pay revenue and maintain the dignity of the Raj. The malikana was considered part of the estate and should go with it. The court upheld the plaintiff's right to the malikana grant.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the estate was impartible and that the plaintiff, as the nearest co-parcener of the senior line, was entitled to succeed to the gaddi. The transfers and gifts made by Rani Bed Saran Kuar were declared invalid. The malikana grant was considered part of the estate and should go with it. The appeal was dismissed, and the decree of the lower court was upheld with a modification regarding the moveable property.