Back
A.V.VARADARAJAN, S.MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, V.BALAKRISHNA ERADI
State Of Bihar – Appellant
Versus
Radha Krishna Singh – Respondent
What is the standard for escheat when a Government claim is involved and what conditions must be satisfied to patent an escheat without heirs? What is the admissibility and probative value of Ex. J (the Durga Prasad report) and similar genealogical documents in proving title to ancestral property? What are the required links in a pedigree (Ramruch Singh, Gajraj Singh, Bansidhar Singh, Debi Singh) that must be established to prove nearest reversioner rights to the Bettiah Raj estate?
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
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
