1932 (4) TMI 22 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Succession to the Oudh and Juliana properties.
2. Succession to the Rakh Khamba property.
3. Succession to the Khalikabad property.
4. Estoppel against the appellant.
5. Jurisdiction over the Khalikabad property claim.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Succession to the Oudh and Juliana Properties:
The primary issue was the interpretation of the wills of Nawab Nasir Ali Khan. The trial judge held that Sir Fateh Ali Khan took only a life interest, with the respondent succeeding as the next tenant for life. The Chief Court of Oudh affirmed this view. The appellant argued that the wills conferred a series of absolute interests, making Sir Fateh the absolute owner. However, the court concluded that the dominant intention of the testator was to create a succession of limited life interests, not absolute ownership. The wills intended for the properties to pass to three persons in succession and thereafter to others selected in a specified manner. Therefore, the respondent was entitled to succeed to the Oudh and Juliana properties as the next tenant for life.

2. Succession to the Rakh Khamba Property:
The trial judge found that there was no valid selection of Sir Fateh in accordance with the grant terms, but he was recognized by the family as succeeding under the will, creating an estoppel against the appellant. The Chief Court of Oudh reversed this, holding that Sir Fateh had been selected either by the heirs or the Government, entitling the appellant to the property. The respondent's appeal to the Privy Council argued estoppel and an alleged family agreement, but the court found no sufficient evidence or legal basis for these claims. Therefore, the respondent's appeal regarding the Rakh Khamba property failed.

3. Succession to the Khalikabad Property:
The trial judge held that the respondent, as the successor of Sir Fateh, was the trustee of the wakf. The Chief Court reversed this, stating that the respondent had no title as no selection for the Nawabship had been made. The Privy Council found that the respondent could not succeed unless he was shown to be the trustee under the wakf deed. The court also determined that the suit regarding this property should be brought in the district where the property is situated, not in Oudh, thus the respondent's appeal on this issue failed.

4. Estoppel Against the Appellant:
The trial judge found that Sir Fateh's acceptance of the wills and his assertions created an estoppel preventing the appellant from denying the wills' validity. However, the Privy Council disagreed, stating that even if Sir Fateh was estopped, it did not bind the appellant. The appellant, entering possession without any title from his father, could not be estopped from disputing the remaindermen's title.

5. Jurisdiction Over the Khalikabad Property Claim:
The appellant objected to the jurisdiction of the Oudh court over the Khalikabad property claim. The Privy Council upheld this objection, stating that the suit should be brought in the district where the property is located. The court found no justification under Section 17, Civil Procedure Code, for combining the claims in one suit in Oudh.

Conclusion:
Both appeals were dismissed. The respondent's claims to the Oudh and Juliana properties were upheld, while his claims to the Rakh Khamba and Khalikabad properties failed. The Privy Council advised His Majesty accordingly, with no costs on either side, except for specific costs related to a petition for the discharge of a receiver.