Judgement

This suit which gave rise to this appeal was brought in the Civil Court of Trichinopoly, by Lekkamani, the first widow of Terumalai Puchaya Naiker, the late zemindar of Marungapuri, to recover, as his heiress, amongst other things, the villages attached to the zemindary. The suit was brought against the Collector of Trichinopoly, as the agent of the Court of Wards in charge of the zemin dary, on behalf, and as the guardian, of Renga Kishna Muthu Vira Puchaiya Naickar, a minor, who was the half-brother of the deceased zemindar, and who, after his death, had been recognised by the Government as the zemindar. At the time of the late zemindars death, he and his half-brother, the minor, were members of an undivided family, and, consequently, if the estate was hereditary, and the minor was legitimate, he was the heir of the deceased zemindar (9 Moores Ind. App. Ca. 66.)

The principal defences set up by the collector were—

1. That no istimrari sunnud (Sec supra, p. 270.)had been granted for the zemin dary, and that it was an unsettled polliem ; that after the death of the late zemindar the right to nominate a successor to him was vested in the Government; that the Government had granted the zemindary to the minor Renga Kishna ; and that this, being an act of state, could not be questioned by any Municipal Court.

2. That, even if an istimrari sunnud had been granted, and the polliem had been settled, the minor, as the undivided half-brother of the deceased zemindar, would be the rightful heir thereto.

The widow disputed the legitimacy of the minor, and the following were the principal issues laid down for trial—

1. 1. Whether the Court was competent to entertain the suit.

2. 2. Whether the half-brother of the deceased zemindar was his legal heir, or whether the Plaintiff herself was entitled to succeed to the zemindary.

3. 3. Whether the minor was the half-brother of the deceased zemindar.

Subsequently, the minor, having attained his full age, was admitted as a supplemental Defendant in the suit; but the first Defendant, the collector, was also allowed to be heard in defence. Whereupon the first Defendant, the collector, having been examined as a witness, the Judge held that it was conclusively proved that the zemindary was an unsettled polliem, and that the right of succession having been declared by the highest authority to be vested in Government and not in the line of lineal succession, it followed that that right could not be called in question in that Court. He, therefore, found the first issue in favour of the first Defendant, and dismissed the Plaintiffs suit with costs.

The Plaintiff appealed to the High Court, and made only the second or supplemental Defendant, the half brother, Respondent. Whereupon the collector presented a petition to the High Court stating that it was contended on the part of the Appellant that the zemindary was not an unsettled one, and consequently that the Government had no right to interfere with the succession thereto on the death of the zemindar, and that the Government was interested in the decision of that question; he therefore prayed that he might be made a party to the suit, and allowed on behalf of Government to defend the appeal.

On the 17th of June, 1870, the petition of the collector was dismissed.

Another petition to the same effect was subsequently presented by the collector, the Government offering to forego all claim to costs. Whereupon it was ordered that the application should be admitted on condition that, in the event of the appeal being dis- missed with costs, no more than the costs of one Respondent should be allowed against the Appellant.

Thus the collector, who was originally a Defendant merely as agent of the Court of Wards and as guardian of the minor zemindar Renga Kishna, became substantially a party to the suit on behalf of and as representing the interests of Government. The appeal came on to be heard before the High Court who, at the close of the arguments on t