SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1968 Supreme(SC) 127

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND G.K. MITTER, JJ.
Raj Kumar Mohan Singh, and others, Appellants
Versus
Raj Kumar Pasupatinath Saran Singh and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 380 of 1965,
D/-19-4-1968.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. C. B. Agarwala, Senior Advocate, (M/s. I. A. Abbasi, S. Rehman and C. P. Lal, Advocates with him), for Appellants. M/s. Jagdish Swaroop and A. K. Sen, Senior Advocates (M/s. R. N. Trivedi and Mrs. S.S. Shukla and Yogeshwar Prasad, Advocates, with him), for Respondents Nos. 1 and 3.

Advocates:
A.K.SEN GUPTA, C.B.AGARWAL, C.P.LAL, I.A.ABBASI, JAGDISH SVARUP, R.N.TRIVEDI, S.Rehman, S.S.SHUKLA, YOGESHVAR DAYAL

Headnote:

Oudh Estates Act, 1869 – Section 8, 22, 13, 11, 13(2) , 3, 13 (1) , 22 , 22 (8), (9) and (7) - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1 of 1951 - U. P. Encumbered Estates Act 25 of 1934 - Adoption of Children Act, 1926 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 43 – Constitution Of India, 1950 - Article 350 - Tiloi Estate - Will - Claiming Estate - Deed of Trust - Whether deed of trust, executed by Raja Bishwanath was valid and operative so as to create an interest in favour of Senior Rajkumar - Whether deeds of trust executed by Rani Jagannath Kuar were valid and operative - Whether title of the Senior Rajkumar suffered from any other infirmity - Whether estate be under charge of Court of Wards – Held, An issue of adverse possession raises mixed questions of law and fact; it may be decided effectively after relevant facts are proved - Again even though Rani Jagannath Kuar was given a mere maintenance, minor Raja was living with her and it does not appear that she was excluded from estate or any part thereof - Mere erroneous admission of title of another person without effective deprivation of possession would not result in extinction of title by adverse possession - It was also said by counsel for Senior Rajkumar that in any event, two of trustees were creditors of settlor, and since they had undertaken to administer trust, transfer must be regarded as one for consideration - But by deed of settlement debts due to creditors were not satisfied - Two of trustees were, it is true, creditors of settlor: those two trustees held a dual capacity-they were to administer trust and also to receive payment in execution of deed of trust - But on that account it cannot be said that amounts due to them from settlor were satisfied – Court agree with High Court that deed of trust was not executed for consideration and, therefore, principle of Section 43 of Transfer of Property Act had no application - It will be declared that deed of trust executed by Raja Bishwanath, did not operate to settle any property being part of taluqdari estate and governed by Oudh Estates Act 1 of 1869, for purposes specified therein - Direction in decree of High Court that In respect of properties mentioned in trust deed- "Ext. E-7 made by Raja Bishwanath Saran Singh, receiver should hand over possession of said properties to Rani Fanindra Rajya Lakshmi Devi, who is life trustee under said deed of trust and entitled to manage same herself or along with any other trustees that might be appointed in respect of said trust, shall be deleted and be substituted by direction that receiver shall hand over properties mentioned in Ext. E-7 to Rajkumar Mohan Singh - Appeal allowed.

Judgement

SHAH,J. -: The following is the genealogical table explaining how the parties are related;

2. Raja Jagpal Singh was granted the taluqdari of the Tiloi Estate by the Government, and his name was entered as taluqdar in Lists 1, 2 and 5 prepared under S. 8 of the Oudh Estates Act 1 of 1869. He died on September 15, 1875, and was succeeded by his son Raja Surpal Singh as taluqdar of the estate. Raja Surpal Singh had no legitimate children. On June 13, 1900, Raja Surpal Singh executed a will disposing of his property and conferring upon wife Rani Jagannath Kuar power to adopt a son. Raja Surpal Singh died on June 21, 1900. Rani Jagannath Kuar adopted on February 21, 1901, a son who was known as Raja Bishwanath Saran Singh hereinafter called Raja Bishwanath . After the death of Raja Surpal Singh the Court of Wards took over the management of the Tiloi Estate and continued to manage it till March 30,1920 when it was released in favour of Raja Bishwanath. On August 29, 1932, Raja Bishwanath executed a deed of trust in respect of the Tiloi Estate and other properties primarily for the benefit of his creditors and the residue remaining after satisfying his debts for the benefit of his son Rajkumar Pasupatinath Saran Singh - hereinafter called "the Senior Rajkumar". Rani Jagannath Kuar died on August 7, 1933. On November 21, 1936, Raja Bishwanath revoked the deed of trust. On January 31, 1942, the Court of Wards again assumed management of the Tiloi Estate on behalf of Raja Bishwanath and continued to manage the estate till it was released on the abolition of the Estate under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1 of 1951. On August 2, 1946, Raja Bishwanath executed a will bequeathing the Tiloi estate and its appurtenances to his son Rajkumar Mohan Singh -- hereinafter called "the junior Rajkumar". Raja Bishwanath died on November 8, 1946, and disputes arose soon thereafter between the Senior Rajkumar and junior Rajkumar- the former claiming the estate relying upon the deed of trust and the latter relying upon the will of the late Raja.

3. The Court of Wards instituted in the court of District Judge, Rai Bareilly, an inter-pleader suit on July 7, 1950 impleading the three windows of Raja Bishwanath, his three sons, and the deity Sri Jangannath Bahari Ji for whose benefit certain lands were settled under two deeds by Rani Jagannath Kuar. The District Judge held that the deed of trust executed by Raja Bishwanth was acted upon and was "not invalid and unenforceable" for any of the reasons set up by the junior Rajkumar and that the Senior Rajkumar was not precluded from claiming the estate relying on the trust deed. He further held that the provisions of S. 22 of the Oudh Estates Act, 1869, applied to the taluqdari estate held by Raja Bishwanath but not to his non-taluqdari property. Since, however, a major portion of the property was the subject matter of the trust under the deed executed in 1932, and the rest had been bequeathed in favour of the Junior Rajkumnar, the question of succession by lineal primogeniture did not arise in respect of any portion of the property which was the subject-matter of the suit. The Court further held that Item 210 of Sch. A to the plaint was not in possession of the Court of Wards and consequently in that respect an inter-pleader suit did not lie, and in respect of Items 8 to 12 of Sch. B to the plaint, the three sons of Raja Bishwanath had only a right of management as shebaits, that the deed of trust constituted a valid gift and the property included in the deed of trust was subject to the obligations created thereby, that Raja Bishwanath was fully competent to execute the deed of trust, and that the will dated August 2, 1946, executed by Raja Bishwanath in favour of Junior Rajkumar was operative in respect of the Items 102 and 112 of Sch. A of the plaint, and also in respect of Items 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Sch. B to the plaint and the other appurtenances of the Tiloi Estate which were not in




























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top