1898 (2) TMI 1 - Other - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Plaintiff's claim to the proprietary right in five villages conveyed as a gift.
2. Plaintiff's claim to the proprietary right in two other villages purchased by the defendant.
3. Plaintiff's claim to a perpetual charge by way of malikana amounting to 10% of the revenue of seven other villages.
4. The validity of the gift of property by Jaswant to his wife under Mitakshara law.
5. The ancestral or self-acquired nature of the village Bakewar.
6. The validity of the High Court decree based on the appointment of Judge Burkitt.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Plaintiff's Claim to the Proprietary Right in Five Villages Conveyed as a Gift:
The plaintiff claimed proprietary rights in five villages conveyed as a gift by Jaswant to Kishori by deed dated September 4, 1875. The District Judge ruled against the plaintiff regarding these properties, except for the village of Bakewar. The High Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal and allowed the defendant's appeal, resulting in the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit on all claims. The plaintiff appealed these orders, but the appeal failed on this point.

2. Plaintiff's Claim to the Proprietary Right in Two Other Villages Purchased by the Defendant:
The plaintiff also claimed proprietary rights in two other villages purchased by the defendant after Jaswant's death. The District Judge ruled against the plaintiff, and the High Court affirmed this decision. The appeal on this point also failed.

3. Plaintiff's Claim to a Perpetual Charge by Way of Malikana:
The plaintiff claimed a perpetual charge by way of malikana amounting to 10% of the revenue of seven other villages. The sanad of April 1861 granted these villages to Jaswant, with the revenue remitted for his lifetime and a 10% malikana allowance to his heir after his death. The plaintiff's contention that the malikana was given in absolute ownership to the heir was rejected. The courts held that the malikana was part of Jaswant's heritable property, and the appeal failed on this point.

4. Validity of the Gift of Property by Jaswant to His Wife Under Mitakshara Law:
The plaintiff argued that a member of an undivided family subject to Mitakshara law could not dispose of self-acquired immovable property at will. The Indian courts have differed on this issue. The Privy Council examined the conflicting texts of the Mitakshara and concluded that the law allowed Jaswant to dispose of his self-acquired property. The appeal on this point failed.

5. Ancestral or Self-Acquired Nature of the Village Bakewar:
The plaintiff contended that the village of Bakewar was ancestral property. The District Judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff, but the High Court found that Bakewar was self-acquired property. The Privy Council examined the transactions involving Bakewar, including mortgages, foreclosures, and reconveyances, and concluded that the village was self-acquired by Jaswant. The appeal on this point failed.

6. Validity of the High Court Decree Based on the Appointment of Judge Burkitt:
The plaintiff argued that the High Court decree was void because Judge Burkitt was not properly appointed. This point was not raised in the lower court, and the Privy Council found no ground for the objection. The appointment was within the discretion of the Lieutenant-Governor, and the appeal on this point failed.

Conclusion:
The appeals failed on all points. The Privy Council advised Her Majesty to dismiss the appeals, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs.