Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, A. VARADARAJAN AND V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI, JJ.
State of Bihar and others, Appellants
Versus
Sri Radha Krishna Singh and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 494-496 of 1975, D/- 20-4-1983.
Advocates appeared
Dr. L. M. Singhvi & Mr. S. C. Mishra, Sr. Advocates, M/s U. P. Singh, S. N. Jha and L. K. Pandey, Advocates with them for Appellants; M/s V. M. Tarkunde & U. R. Lalit, Sr. Advocates, M/s D. N. Goburdhan, and D. Goburdhan Advocate (for Respondents Nos. 5-22) Dr. Y. S. Chitale, Sr Advocate, Mr. Sobha Dikshit, Advocate for the State of U.P. Mr. S. K. Verma, Advocate for Intervener.
-it is well settled that when a claim of cheat is put forward by the Government the onus lies heavily on the appellant to prove the absence of any heir of the respondent any where in the world. Normally the Court frowns on the estate being taken by escheat unless the essential conditions for escheat are fully and completely satisfied. Further, before the plea of escheat can be entertained, there must be a public notice given by the Government so that if there is any claimant anywhere in the country or for that matter in the world, he may come forward to contest the claim of the State.
Key Points: - The onus on escheat claims and necessity of public notice to allow other claimants to come forward (!) (!) . - Escheat not decided since the appeal outcome did not hinge on escheat; Court maintained status quo and left escheat issues open for proper action (!) (!) (!) . - Ex. J admissible under Section 35 but with negligible probative value; it does not establish title and its limitations are discussed in detail (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Privy Council and Indian case law on admissibility of judgments not inter partes and the limits of using such judgments for proof of title or links in genealogies (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Critical missing links in the plaintiff’s genealogy: Gajraj Singh as son of Ramruch Singh and Ramruch Singh as son of Bansidhar Singh; experts’ discussion on post-litem motam and sources of knowledge (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The majority judgment’s conclusions are rejected; the dissenting view held that plaintiffs failed to prove nearest reversioner status due to missing vital links (!) (!) (!) . - The decision ultimately dismisses the plaintiffs’ title suits with costs; appeals allowed; escheat question left open (!) (!) (!) .
Judgment
FAZAL ALI, J.:- These appeals are directed against a judgment of the Special Bench of The Patna High Court by which the High Court decreed title suit No, 5/61 after reversing the judgment of the trial Court. It appears that after the death of Maharaja Harendra Kishore Singh (hereinafter referred to as the Maharaja) who died issueless on the 26th of March 1893, a serious dispute arose about the Impartible estate left by him. The Maharaja claimed to be a direct descendant of Raja Hirday Narain Singh who was the admitted owner of the properties. Several persons came forward with rival claims of being the heirs to the properties left by the Maharaja which consisted of immovable and moveable properties, such as lands, houses, jewellery, etc. As a result of the hot contest by each of the claimants, one suit was filed at Varanasi being T.S. No, 3/55. That suit was filed by one Ram Bux Singh who claimed to be the nearest reversioner of the late Maharaja. That suit, however, appears to have died its natural death during the preliminary stages and was ultimately withdrawn on April 9, 1956, leaving only three claimants in the field.
2. Another suit was filed on 16th August 1955 in the Court of Sub-Judge, Patna which was registered as T. S. No. 44/1955. The claimant in this suit was one Suresh Nandan Singh of Sheohar who had put in his claim before the Board of Revenue which had taken over the management of the entire properties after the death of the widows of the Maharaja.
3. The third suit being T. S. No. 25/58 was filed by two sets of plaintiffs who had entered into some agreement inter se. That suit was filed in the Court of Sub-Judge, Patna on April 11, 1958. In that suit, the main claim was put forward by Raja Jugal Kishore Singh who claimed to have succeeded to the gaddi of the Bettiah Raja in the capacity of putri ka putra of Raja Dhrub and on the extinction of the line of Raja Dalip Singh by reason of the death of Maharaja Harendra Kishore Singh, the right devolved on the plaintiff, Ambika Prasad Singh.
4. The fourth suit was filed on March 12, 1959 in the Court of Sub-Judge. Chhapra which was later transferred to the Court of Sub-Judge. Patna and renumbered as T. S. 5/l961. In this suit also, there were two sets of plaintiffs - one consisting of plaintiffs who had entered into a champertous agreement with the other set of plaintiffs. In this suit, the principal plaintiffs, Shri Radha Krishna Singh, one of the sons of Bhagwati Prasad Singh, claimed to have succeeded to the estate of the late Maharaja as his nearest reversioner.
5. We might mention here that the main contest before us has been between the plaintiff, Radha Krishna Singh (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) and the State of Bihar, supported by the State of Uttar Pradesh. So far as the other two suits were concerned they were dismissed both by the trial. Court and the High Court but the suit filed by Radha Krishna Singh (T. S. 5/1961) was decreed by the High Court with a majority of 2: 1. Mr. Justice G. N. Prasad with whom Mr. Justice A. N. Mukherji agreed, reversed the judgment of the Subordinate Judge and decreed the suit of Radha Krishna Singh and rejected the claim of the State of Bihar Mr. Justice M. M. Prasad, however took a different 688 view and agreed with the trial Court holding that the suit of the plaintiff was rightly dismissed. He accordingly gave a dissenting judgment dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.
6. It is not necessary for us to embark. on the history and other circumstances of the case because Justice G. N. Prasad has dextrously detailed the facts and circumstances of the entire case and has candidly narrated the historical events leading to the various crucial stages through which the litigation regarding the disputed properties had passed. We, therefore, need not repeat what has already been fully discussed by the High Court. Suffice it to say that the eventful story of the present litigation opens with the death of Maharaja Haren
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
