Judgement

Appeal (No. III of 1928) from a judgment and decree of the High Court (January 21, 1924) affirming, subject to a modification, a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Tanjore (July 1, 1918) made in an interpleader suit (No. 26 of 1912).

The main question in this appeal was as to which of a number of claimants (all parties to the appeal except respondent No. 1) were entitled, under the terms of a Government Grant of 1862, to the properties originally owned by the late Rajah Sivaji of Tanjore. Respondent No. 1 was the receiver and manager of the properties, and on July 8, 1912, he instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tanjore, an interpleader suit to have the right of succession to the properties determined by the Court.

The Government Grant provided that "The estate will therefore be made over to the senior widow.....On the death of the last surviving widow, the daughter of the late Rajah, or failing her, the next heirs of the late Rajah, if any, will inherit the property." The last widow died in 1912.

The appellant (defendant No. 3 in the suit), who claimed to be the adopted son of an adopted son of the late Rajahs daughter by a predeceased wife, contended (1.) that, under the grant of 1862 a right to the estate had vested in the Rajahs daughter before her death in 1885, which passed to her heirs, and that he, as such heir, was entitled to the whole estate ; and (2.) that, in any event, he was entitled to take as a " next heir of the late Rajah."

The facts, the relationship of the claimants, and the material portion of the grant of 1862 appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

The Subordinate Judge of Tanjore and, on appeal, the High Court (Spencer Offg. C. J. and Kumaraswami Sastri J.) rejected the contentions of the appellant. The appeal is reported at ( 1925) I. L. R. 48 M. 1.

1936. Jan. 27, 30. Subba Row for the appellant.

A. V. V. Sastri for the legal representatives of the second respondent.

K. V. L. Narasimham for the Official Receiver of West Tanjore, representing the estate of the insolvent third respondent; and for respondents 6, 7, and 20.

The respondents were not called upon.

[Reference was made to Secretary of State in Council of India v. Kamachee Boye Sahaba (( 1859) 7 Moo. I. A. 476.); Watkins v. Frederick and Others (( 1864-5) 11 H. L. C. 358, 366.); Jijoyiamba Bayi Saiba v. Kamdkshi Bayi Saiba (( 1868) 3 M. H. C. R. 424, 428.); Edgeworth v. Edgeworth (( 1869) L. R. 4 H. L. 35.); Finch v. Lane (( 1870) L. R. 10 Eq. 501.); Mussumat Bhagbutti Daee v.

Chowdry Bholanath Thakoor (( 1875) L. R. 2 I. A. 256.); In re Jobson. Jobson v. Richardson (( 1889) 44 Ch. D. 154, 156.); Lallu v. Jagmohan (( 1896) I. L. R. 22 B. 409.); and Chunilal v. Bai Midi.(( 1899) I. L. R. 24 B. 420.)]

Feb. 27. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by

LORD THANKERTON. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated January 21, 1924, which affirmed, subject to a modification, a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Tanjore, dated July 1, 1918, and made in an interpleader suit, which was instituted on July 8, 1912, by the receiver and manager of the Tanjore Palace estate, in order to have the right of succession to these properties determined by the Court.

Maharajah Sivaji, the last King of Tanjore, died in 1855, leaving no male issue. On his death the East India Company, in the exercise of its sovereign powers, took possession, as an act of state, of all his properties, which included the properties in suit.

About a year later, the senior widow of the Rajah filed a bill in equity against the East India Company, disputing the legality of the seizure of the private properties of the Rajah, and seeking recovery of the same in her right as senior widow of the Rajah. The litigation was finally determined by this Board on July 27, 1859, when it was held that the seizure of the properties was an act of state, into which the municipal Courts were not entitled