Back
1904 Supreme(SC) 11
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD MACNAGHTEN, LORD LINDLEY, AND SIR ARTHUR WILSON.
THAKURAIN BALRAJ KUNWAR - Appellant
Versus
RAE JAGATPAL SINGH - Respondents
On Appeal from the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh.
Decided On : April 22, 26; May 14,
Solicitors for appellants : T. L. Wilson & Co.
Solicitors for respondent: Young, Jackson, Beard & King.
The court ruled that "would have succeeded" in the Oudh Estates Act refers only to the specific line of succession applicable at the time of transfer. It also reaffirmed that marginal notes cannot be used for statutory interpretation and that pre-Act bequests do not create "legatees" under the Act.
Headnote:(A) Oudh Estates Act, 1869 - Sections 13, 14, 15 and 22 - Succession to taluqdari estate - Interpretation of "would have succeeded" - The expression "would have succeeded" in Sections 13 and 14 must be confined to persons in the special line of succession that would have been applicable to the particular case if the transferor or testator had died intestate at the date of the transfer or, in the case of a gift by will, at the time when the succession opened. It is equivalent to the person or one of the persons to whom the estate would have descended according to the provisions of the special clause of Section 22 applicable to the particular case.
(B) Statutory Interpretation - Marginal Notes - Marginal notes to the sections of an Act cannot be referred to for the purpose of construing the Act. There is no reason to give marginal notes in an Indian statute greater authority than those in an English Act of Parliament.
(C) Oudh Estates Act, 1869 - Section 22, clause 6 - Definition of "brother" - The term "brother" as used in clause 6 of Section 22 includes a brother of the half-blood.
(D) Oudh Estates Act, 1869 - Definition of "legatee" - A person who received a bequest that came into operation before the passing of the Act cannot be considered a "legatee" within the definition of the term in the Act, and thus cannot be considered a person to whom property was bequeathed under the special provisions of the Act.
Facts of the case:
A taluqdar devised a share of his estate to his younger son via a will. Upon the death of the younger son intestate, leaving no male issue, a dispute arose between the widows of the deceased and the son of the deceased's half-brother. The central conflict was whether the succession was governed by the special rules for legatees under the statutory act or by ordinary law, depending on whether the younger son was a "legatee" and a person who "would have succeeded" under the Act.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the recipient of the bequest was not a "legatee" under the Act because the bequest took effect before the Act's enactment. Furthermore, the court determined that the recipient did not fall within the specific "prescribed line of succession" required by Section 14 to maintain the statutory rules of succession.
Issues: (i) Whether the phrase "would have succeeded" in Sections 13 and 14 refers to any possible heir or only those in the specific line of succession; (ii) whether marginal notes of a statute are admissible for interpretation; (iii) whether the term "brother" includes half-brothers; and (iv) whether a bequest operating before the Act's commencement creates a "legatee" under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that "would have succeeded" refers strictly to the specific line of succession applicable at the time of the transfer. If the line of succession is broken by a transfer to someone outside that specific line, the statutory fetters of the entail no longer apply. Additionally, marginal notes are not aids to construction, and a bequest operating prior to the Act does not make the recipient a "legatee" under the Act's special provisions.
Result: Decree appealed from reversed, with costs, and the decree of the Subordinate Judge restored.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
property law
-
land tenure
-
taluqdari estates
- succession
-
taluqdari estates
-
land tenure
-
statutory interpretation
-
construction rules
- marginal notes
-
construction rules
-
family law
-
hindu law
- succession
-
hindu law
Judgement
Appeal from a decree of the above Court (March 6, 1900) modifying a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Partabghur (Dec. 24, 1898), which dismissed the respondents suit with costs.
The subject of suit was (inter alia) the right to succeed to a nine-twentieths share in the taluqa of Raepur Bichore, the last male owner of which was Rae Bisheshar Bakhsh Singh, who died on August 31, 1890.
After the annexation of the Province of Oudh, the estate of Raepur Bichore was summarily settled with Rae Pirthipal Singh, the father of Rae Bisheshar Bakhsh Singh and the grandfather of the respondent. He was the owner of the estate at the time, and after the confiscation of all proprietary rights in the soil of Oudh, which was effected by the pro clamation of the Viceroy and Governor-General of India in March, 1858, obtained a taluqdari sanad, or title-deed, from Government.
On January 22, 1866; Rae Pirthipal Singh devised eleven-twentieths of the said taluqa to the wife of Rae Jagmohan Singh, his eldest son, and half-brother to Bisheshar, for the benefit of Rae Jagmohan Singh, who was suffering from mental infirmity. The remaining nine-twentieths share he devised to Rae Bisheshar Baksh Singh. He made two separate lists of the villages which were to constitute each of the said shares, and in his lifetime obtained the orders of the Revenue authorities to record the names of his sons in regard to these villages in the Revenue registers. In June, 1866, Rae Pirthipal Singh died.
On Bisheshar Bakhshs death intestate, his widows, the appellants, and the respondent, who was the son of Jagmohan Singh, claimed to succeed. The Revenue Courts on December 12, 1890, placed the appellants in possession, and thereupon the respondent sued by his next friend to recover the said nine-twentieths share which was specified in List A annexed to the plaint. The other lists contained property which was not taluqdari property. He claimed as next heir to the taluqa under s. 22, clause 6, of Act I. of 1869, and to be next heir to the whole property by virtue of a special family custom of descent according to primogeniture.
The Subordinate Judge decided that Rae Bisheshar Bakhsh Singh had obtained his share in the said taluqa as legatee under the will dated January 22, 1866, and not under any family settlement or
transfer inter vivos. As to the succession to the taluqa being governed by s. 22, Act I. of 1869, he con
sidered that the Act did not apply, being of opinion, on the construction of ss. 14 and 15 of the Act, that Rae Bisheshar Baksh Singh was not the person who would have succeeded Rae Pirthipal Singh if he had died intestate, and was, therefore, not the legatee referred to in s. 14. He said further that, if he had to decide the question, he should hold that the word " brother " in s. 22, clause 6, Act I. of 1869, included half-brother.
In appeal the Judicial Commissioners affirmed the finding that Bisheshar was a legatee of Pirthipal Singh within the meaning of Act. I. of 1869. They then held that s. 22 of that Act did not directly
apply, inasmuch as Rae Bisheshar Baksh Singh was a legatee under a will which had come into opera
tion prior to the passing of Act I. of 1869. They were nevertheless of opinion that on the proper construction of s. 14 the succession would still be governed by the rules laid down in s. 22. They were also of opinion that in clause 6 of the said section the word "brother" included half-brother. In the result they modified the Subordinate Judges decree of dismissal, and passed a decree in favour of the respondent for the villages constituting the nine-twentieths share of taluqa Raepur Bichore, as specified in List A annexed to the plaint, with costs in proportion.
With regard to the question whether the succession was governed by s. 14 or s. 15, they said " It is contended for the plaintiff that the words in s. 14, a person who would have succeeded according to the provisions of this Act if the testator had died intestate, mean a
