1970 Supreme(SC) 87
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.M. SIKRI AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ
Pt. Jayvant Rao and others, Appellants
Versus
Pt. Chandrakant Rao and others, Respondents.
Advocates appeared
Civil Appeal No. 1370 of 1966, D/-26-2-1970.M/s. R. K. Garg, S. C. Agarwal and D. P. Singh Advocates of M/s. Ramamurthi and Co. and Mr. V. J. Francis and Miss. S. Chakravarty Advocates, for Appellants; Mr. D. V. Patel, Sr. Advocate, (Mr. Janendra Lal, Advocate and Mr. B. R. Agarwala Advocate of M/s. Gagrat and Co., with him), for Respondents.
Headnote:
Constiution of India, 1950 - Article 372 - Properties - Share - Suit for partition - Decreed - Plaintiffs/appellants and non-contesting pro forma respondents are descendants, while contesting respondents are descendants, principal one being who was defendant No. 1 in suit - Appellants sought partition of all family properties, including eight villages known as "the Sarola Jagir" which were situated in erstwhile State of Kota - Trial Court dismissed suit in its entirety, holding that none of properties in suit was ancestral property - On appeal by present appellants, High Court of Rajasthan upheld the dismissal of suit insofar as the appellants had claimed a share in eight villages forming, while suit in respect of the other properties was decreed and a preliminary decree passed in respect of those properties - It appears that had contracted debts with family even in time of his ancestors and at relevant time, the amount of debt exceeded Rs. 9 lakhs - This debt was guaranteed by British Government - Whether appellants are entitled to claim a share in compensation money received in lieu of these eight villages under Rajasthan Act VI of 1952 – Held, claimed that, after Jagirs had been converted into cash under Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act No. VI of 1952, appellants should have been granted a share in compensation received on basis that this property was earlier joint Hindu family property - In alternative, it was also urged that, even if this claim of plaintiffs/appellants is not accepted, they would at least be entitled to claim a part of compensation in lieu of their right of maintenance. - ignored this aspect altogether and even High Court did not take into account effect of Act VI of 1952 in the two aspects which have been mentioned by Court above - Since, this is an appeal against a preliminary decree in suit and the suit is still to continue in trial Court, we think it appropriate to direct that these questions should be properly raised in trial Court by amendment of pleadings in plaint, if necessary and should be considered and decided by that Court - It will be for that Court to give a fresh decision whether appellants are entitled to claim a share in compensation money received in lieu of these eight villages - Appeal is dismissed
Judgment
BHARGAVA, J.: - This appeal a rises out of a suit for partition of properties in the family of one Lalaji Ramchandra who was the common ancestor of the parties to the suit. He hard two sons. Govindraoji and Motilal alias Krishnaraoji. The plaintiffs/appellants and the non-contesting pro forma respondents are the descendants of Motilal, while the contesting respondents are the descendants of Govindraoji, the principal one being Chandrakant Rao who was defendant No. 1 in the suit. The appellants sought partition of all the family properties, including eight villages known as "the Sarola Jagir" which were situated in the erstwhile State of Kota. The trial Court dismissed the suit in its entirety, holding that none of the properties in suit was ancestral property. On appeal by the present appellants, the High Court of Rajasthan upheld the dismissal of the suit insofar as the appellants had claimed a share in the eight villages forming the Sarola Jagir, while the suit in respect of the other properties was decreed and a preliminary decree passed in respect of those properties. The appellants have come up to this Court in this appeal, by certificate granted by the High Court, against the order of the High Court refusing to grant partition of the eight villages of the Sarola Jagir.
2. In order to appreciate the point raised in this appeal, the history of this Jagir in this family may be recited briefly. Lalaji Ramchandra and his eldest son Govindraoji were awarded this Jagir by means of a Parwana, dated 8th April, 1838 issued by His Highness Maharao Ramsingh, Ruler of Kotah. It appears that the Maharao had contracted debts with the family of Lalaji Ramchandra even in the time of his ancestors and at the relevant time, the amount of debt exceeded Rs. 9 lakhs. This debt was guaranteed by the British Government. In lieu of this debt, this Jagir, which was already being enjoyed by Lalaji Ramchandra with certain limitations, was given jointly to him and his son Govindraoji stating that it was being conferred in perpetuity and was always to remain from sons to grandsons and was to be free from all taxes which were being exacted up to that time, such as Barar and Sewai. At the same time, Govind Raoji executed a deed of release by which he accepted the adjustment of the amount due from the Maharao against this grant of Jagir. These documents thus show that this Jagir was originally granted by Maharao Ramsingh, Ruler of Kotah, jointly in the names of Lalaji Ram Chandra and his son, Govindraoji in lieu of the debt which the Maharao owed to them. Subsequently, this property was treated as property of the joint family of Lalaji Ramchandra. Motilal the second son of Lalaji Ramchandra, was born after this grant and his name was also mutated against the Jagir villages. On the death of Govindraoji the name of his adopted son, Ganpat Raoji, was brought in, while Motilal, the uncle, managed the property on behalf of the family. Motilal executed a will in respect of his properties including these villages, specifically stating that half of this property belonged to Ganpatraoji while half would belong to his adopted son, Purshottam Raoji After the death of Motilal Ganpatraoji became the manager of the property and Purshottam Raoji s name was also entered against this property. On the death of Ganpat Raoji, the name of his eldest son Chandrakant Rao was mutated, while Purshottam Raoji in the capacity of the eldest member of the family, started managing the property. The property thus remained in the family, being treated as joint family property and, even during the years between 1852 and 1868 when efforts were made by the Maharao of Kotah to dispossess this family, the British Government had intervened to ensure that the property remained with this family, insisting that the Maharao could only resume the Jagir on repayment of the loan in respect of which discharge had been obtained when this Jagir was conferred. The property was thus continued to