Back
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD BLANESBURGH, LORD THANKERTON, LORD SALVESEN, SIR JOHN WALLIS, AND SRA DINSHAH MULLA.
SHIBA PRASAD SINGH - Appellant
Versus
RANI PRAYAG KUMARI DEBI - Respondents
On appeal from the High Court at Calcutta.
Decided On : Apr. 7. 1932.
The question involved in these appeals relate to the right of succession to an estate known as the Jheria Raj, situated in the district of Manbhum, and other property, movable and immovable, left by Raja Durga Prasad.
Fact of the Case:
Raja Durga Prasad died childless on March 7, 1916, leaving three widows and Shiba Prasad Singh, his second cousin. The parties are governed by the Mitakshara school of Hindu law. The Raj is ancient and ancestral, and it is impartible by custom, and succession to it is governed by the rule of lineal primogeniture. The last holder of the estate was Raja Durga Prasad, who died childless on March 7, 1916, leaving three widows and Shiba Prasad Singh, his second cousin.
Finding of the Court:
The defendant is entitled to the impartible estate [schedule ka, 1], on the ground that he was entitled to it by survivorship, and the improvements on the estate [schedule kha, 9-19], on the ground that they formed part and parcel of the estate. He also awarded to the defendant the self-acquisitions of Raja Rash Behari Lal and Raja Jaymangal [schedule ka, 2-7], on the ground that they were incorporated with the impartible estate. As to the properties acquired by the late Raja [schedule kha, 1-8], he held that they had not been incorporated with the impartible estate, and he awarded them to the plaintiffs.
Issues: First, whether the late Raja and the defendant were, at the time of the Rajas death, members of a joint undivided Hindu family. Second, whether the holder of an impartible estate has the power to incorporate other properties belonging to him with the estate. And, if so, Third, whether any such properties had in fact been incorporated with the estate, and, if so, which ?
Ratio Decidendi: The holder of an ancestral impartible estate is entitled to incorporate other properties belonging to him with that estate.
Final Decision: The appeals preferred both by the plaintiffs (No. 79 of 1925) and by the defendant (Nos. 71 and 72 of 1925) should be allowed in part, and that the decree of the High Court be affirmed subject to the following directions and modifications
Judgement
Three Consolidated Appeals (No. 7 of 1930) from a decree of the High Court (August 7, 1925) which dismissed an appeal of the defendant and partly allowed and partly dismissed an appeal of the plaintiff from a decree of the Subordinate Judge of 24-Perganas (November 3, 1921).
The litigation related to the succession to the estate of Raja Durga Prasad Singh, who died childless on March 17, 1916, survived by three widows, who were the plaintiffs in the suit and respondents to the first appeal. The defendant, Shiba Prasad Singh (appellant in the first appeal), was a collateral relative of the deceased Raja. The parties were governed by the Mitakshara. The chief item of property was the impartible estate Jheria, situated in the Manbhum district, but the Raja died possessed of considerable other immovable property, also of cash, jewellery, and other movable property.
Upon the death of the Raja the defendant took possession of the estate of Jheria and also other property of the Raja, claiming that it passed to him by survivorship. The plaintiffs alleged that the family had ceased to be joint, and claimed the estate under Hindu law ; they claimed the other immovable and movable property as self-acquisitions.
The facts, and the effect of the decisions in India, are fully stated in the judgment of the Judicial Committee.
1931. Nov. 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 17,19, 20, 23, 24. De Gruyther K.C. and Dunne K.C. (with them Parikh and S. K. G. Gupta) for the defendant.
Upjohn K.C. and Dube K.C. for the plaintiffs.
The arguments dealt to a great extent with the evidence, but also with certain questions of law, namely (1.) the devolution of an impartible estate in a Mitakshara joint family ; (2.) the evidence necessary to establish that the family had ceased to be joint so as to affect the devolution of the estate; (3.) whether, and by what means, the holder of an impartible estate can incorporate with it property, either immovable or movable, so as to make that property descend according to the rule of primogeniture governing the estate.
The contentions upon the above questions, and the principal authorities referred to, appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee ; in addition to cases there mentioned reference was made to the following Naragunty v. Vengama Naidoo (( 1861) 9 Moo. I. A. 66.) ; Anundee Koonwur v. Khedoo Lal (( 1872) 14 Moo. I. A. 412.) ; Heeranath Kooer v. Burnt Narain Singh (( 1872) 17 Suth. W. R. 316.) ; Doorga Persad Singh v. Doorga Konwari (( 1878) L. R. 5 I. A. 149.) ; Naraganti Achammagaru v. Venkatachalapati (( 1881) I. L. R. 4 M. 250.) ; Rup Singh v. Baisni (( 1884) L. R. 11 I. A. 149.) ; Jogendra Bhupati v. Nityanund Man Singh (( 1890) L. R. 17 I. A. 128.) ; Muttuvaduganada Tevar v. Periasami Tevar (( 1896) L. R. 23 I. A. 128.) ; Lakhshmi Devi v. Narayana Dhatrazu (( 1897) L. R. 24 I. A. 118.); Udayar Palyam Case (( 1905) L. R. 32 I. A. 261.);
Tara Kumari v. Chaturbhuj Narayan Singh (( 1915) L. R. 42 I. A. 192.) ; Bettiah Raj Case (( 1920) 24 C. W. N. 857.) (explained in Baijnath’s case (( 1921) L. R. 48 I. A. 195, 212, 213.)).
1932. April 7. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by
SIR DINSHAH MULLA. The questions involved in these appeals relate to the right of succession to an estate known as the Jheria Raj, situated in the district of Manbhum, and other property, movable and immovable, left by Raja Durga Prasad.
The suit out of which the appeals arise was instituted by the widows of Raja Durga Prasad in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of the 24-Perganas against Shiba Prasad Singh, a distant agnatic relation of the Raja, to recover the estate and other property. On November 3, 1921. the Subordinate Judge passed a decree whereby he allowed the suit in part and dismissed it as to the rest. Both parties appealed to the High Court wt Calcutta, and the High Court by its decree dated August 17, 1925, allowed the appeals in part. From this decree of the High Court both parties have appealed to His Majest
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
