1899 (2) TMI 2 - Other - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the second respondent as the son of the late Rajah.
2. Validity of the will made by the late Rajah.
3. Power of the Rajah to alienate the impartible estate.
4. Custom of inalienability in the Madras Presidency.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legitimacy of the Second Respondent:
The suit was initiated by the adopted son of the late Rajah of Pittapur against the Court of Wards and the minor son of the late Rajah. The plaint contested the legitimacy of the second respondent as the son of the late Rajah and his right to succeed under any wills left by the late Rajah. The District Judge of Godaveri ruled that the second respondent was not the son of the late Rajah, and the will in his favor was invalid. However, the High Court reversed this decision, dismissing the suit without determining the issue of the second respondent's legitimacy.

2. Validity of the Will:
The appellant argued that there was a contract preventing the Rajah from making a will that would defeat the appellant's vested rights by adoption. However, the court found no difficulty in dismissing this contention, stating that there was no implied contract restricting the Rajah's power to make a will. The court also addressed another contention that the will could not favor a person who was not the natural son of the Rajah. Despite the assumption that the second respondent was not the natural son, the court held that the false description did not vitiate the gift made by the will. The case of Fanindra Deb Raikat v. Rajeswar Das was distinguished based on different wording in the Rajah's will.

3. Power to Alienate the Impartible Estate:
The appellant admitted that the property was not inalienable by any special family custom or tenure. The court referenced the case of Rani Sartaj Kuari v. Rani Deoraj Kuari, which discussed the inalienability of ancestral impartible estates. It was held that the inalienability of such estates depends on custom or the nature of the tenure, which must be proved. The court found no custom or tenure making the property inalienable in this case.

4. Custom of Inalienability in Madras Presidency:
The appellant contended that a custom of inalienability existed across the Madras Presidency, established by a long series of court decisions. The court examined these decisions, noting inconsistencies in their reasoning. The earlier decisions were based on the construction of Regulation XXV of 1802, while later ones relied on the Mitakshara law. The court found no consistent or ancient custom modifying the law of succession. The argument that the custom followed the law was deemed insufficient to establish a binding custom of inalienability.

Conclusion:
The court affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that the Rajah had the power to alienate the impartible estate by will. The appellant's arguments regarding the contract, the legitimacy of the second respondent, and the custom of inalienability were rejected. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the second respondent.