PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
PRESENT: MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE,—THE RIGHT HON. THE LORD JUSTICE KNIGHT BRUCE, THE RIGHT. HON. SIR EDWARD RYAN, AND THE RIGHT HON. THE LORD JUSTICE FURAER
KATAMA NATCHIAR - Appellant
Versus
SRIMUT RAJAH MOOTTOO VIJAYA RAGANADHA BODHA GOOROO SAWMY PERIYA ODAYA TAVER - Respondents
On appeal from the Sudder Dewanny Adawlut at Madras.
Decided On : April 27, 28, 29 &-30, May 30, & June 1, 1863.
Judgement
In this case the appeal was brought from a decree of the Civil Court of Madura, dated the 27th of December, 1847, by which the Respondents father, Gowery Taver, the son of Oya Taver, was held entitled to the Zemindary of Shivagunga, as heir to the Appellants [@ page M.I.A. 540] father, Gowery Vallabha Taver, in preference to Anga Moottoo Natchiar, the surviving widow of the latter, on the ground that Appellants father and his elder brother, Oya Taver, were undivided brothers. The appeal also embraced the decrees of the Sudder Adawlut Court at Madras, dated the 19th of April, 1852, the 5th of November, 1859, the 3rd of March, 1860, and the decree of the Civil Court of Madura, of the 25th of August, 1859, in which it was held that the Appellant, claiming as heir in remainder after the death of the surviving widow, Anga, Moottoo Natchiar, was not entitled either to appeal from the decree of the 27th of December, 1847, or to prosecute a new suit to recover the Zemindary.
The property claimed comprised the Zemindary of Shivagunga,. a Zemindary of very great value, situate in the District of Madura in the Presidency of Madras, together with other property and mesne profits to a very large amount.
The circumstances of the case, the history of the Zemindary of Shivagunga, and of the extensive litigation respecting the succession, were as follow—
The Zemindary of Shivagunga was created by [@ page M.I.A. 541] Saadut Ally Khan, Nabob of the Carnatic, in the year 1730, and it was given as an hereditary fief by him to Shasavarna Odaya Taver, of the family of Nalcooty, of the Marawa caste, in reward for his-military services. Shasavarna was on his death succeeded by his only son, Vadooganada, who was killed in battle Vadooganada, had an infant daughter by his wife, Ranee Velu, but no other child. It appeared that two persons named Vella Murdoo and Chinna Murdoo then usurped the actual government of the Zemindary, and ultimately wrested from the Nabob of the Carnatic his acquiescence in the nominal tenure of the Zemindaryship by Ranee Velu. Velu gave her daughter by Vadooganada in marriage to one Vengam Odaya Taver. The daughter died in giving birth to her first child, and the child survived its mother but a short period. Both died in the lifetime of the Ranee Velu, who was thus left issueless. It also appeared that the Appellants father lived at Shivagunga with the Ranee, who, it was alleged, had adopted him.
The parties who then appeared to be entitled to the Zemindary were two brothers, Oya Taver and Gowery Vallabha Taver, colla teral descendants from the progenitors of Shasavarna. bowery Vallabha Taver was at this time about twenty-nine years of age. Oya Taver was his senior in years, but sickly and infirm, the two brothers were the nearest relations of Vadooganada and also of Shasavarna. Vella Murdoo and Chinna Murdoo, on the death of Ranee Velu, expelled Oya Taver and Gowery Vallabha 1 aver from the Zemindary, and joined a rebellion against the Government. This rebellion was put down by the East India Company.
By the Treaty of the 12th of July, 1792, all sovereign power over the Poligar countries, including the Zemindary of Shivagunga, was transferred in perpetuity by the then Nabob of the Carnatic to the East India Company.
[@ page M.I.A. 542] By a proclamation of Lord Clive, dated the 6th of July, 1801, the Government transferred the Zemindary, which it appeared, was treated by the Government as an escheat for want of lineal heirs, to the Appellants father, Gowery Vallabha Taver otherwise called Permettoor Worria Taver, or Woya Taver who was collaterally descended from the progenitors of the first zemindar, and appointed him Zemindar of Shivagunga.
By a Sunnud i Milkeat Istimrar, or deed of permanent settlement, dated the 22nd of April, 1803, the Zemindary was confirmed to the Appellants father, to hold in perpetuity, with power to transfer the same by sale or gift, on payment to the Government 6f a permanent annual jumma.
A son born from a void marriage has rights to inheritance under amendments to the Hindu Succession Act, affirming equal status to legitimate and illegitimate children in claims for partition post the....
The court recognizes the entitlement of female heirs to a share in ancestral property based on notional partition, counteracting historical biases that deprived them of their rightful claims.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937 did not apply to agricultural lands in Tamil Nadu until after the death of the deceased, and the....
Hindu female heirs cannot inherit property from a male relative if the male died before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, making their claims void in this context.
In disputes regarding partition of joint Hindu family property, the burden of proof lies on the party asserting partition, and the presumption of jointness remains unless clear evidence to the contra....
Children born out of wedlock can claim equal rights to inheritance alongside legitimate children, as per Hindu law principles.
The burden of proof lies with the party claiming partition to establish the division of properties, and the court may allow additional evidence if vital to decide the case.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.