Back
1920 Supreme(SC) 6
Privy Council
Ameer Ali, Sir John Edge , Lord Moulton, Justice Viscount Cave, JJ.
(Rajkumar Babu) Bishun Prakash Narayan Singh -Appellant
Versus
Maharani Janki Koer and others -Resopndent
Decided On : 13-02-1920
Atkin, Sanderson, Hunter, Watkins , E.W. Eddis, A.M. Dunne , DeGruyther, B. Dube, Eddi, Lee , E. Richards
An impartible zemindari is created by custom, and its essential characteristic is that coparcenary does not exist within it; therefore, succession to such an estate cannot be claimed under the rule of coparcenary.
Headnote:(A) Impartible Zemindari - Custom - Coparcenary - Succession to an estate admitted to be an impartible zemindari - Impartible zemindari is a creature of custom, and it is of its essence that coparcenary in it does not exist - A claim for succession based on the rule of coparcenary is unsustainable where the estate is impartible.
Facts of the case:
The appellant claimed entitlement to an estate on the basis that his branch of the family was joint with the family of the previous holder. He contended that upon the death of the last holder without male issue, he became entitled to succeed to the estate by the rule of coparcenary. It was admitted by the parties that the estate in question was an impartible zemindari.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the appellant's claim was based on the rule of coparcenary, but since the estate was an impartible zemindari, such a claim could not succeed.
Issues: Whether a claimant can succeed to an impartible zemindari by applying the rule of coparcenary.
Ratio Decidendi: An impartible zemindari is the creature of custom, and the fundamental nature of such an estate is that coparcenary does not exist within it. Consequently, even if the facts regarding family jointness are accepted, the rule of coparcenary cannot be used to claim succession to an impartible estate.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
property law
-
land tenure
-
impartible zemindari
- coparcenary rights
-
impartible zemindari
-
land tenure
Viscount Cave :-
Their Lordships think it unnecessary to call on Counsel for the respondents in this case as the appellant is faced from the beginning with a difficulty which he has not been able to surmount.
The claim of the appellant to the Bettiah Raj is founded upon the view that his branch of the family was joint with the family of the late Raja, and accordingly became entitled, upon the death of the last Raja without male issue, to succeed by the rule of coparcenary to the estate. If it had been necessary for their Lordships to go into the facts, they would have had to consider how far this case is covered by the authority of the decision in Ram Nunden Singh v. Janki Koer . [1902] 29 Cal., 828 = 29 I.A., 178 = 4 Bom. L.R., 664 = 7 C.W.N., 57 = 8 Sar. 351 (P.C.). But the appellant does not get so far. It is admitted that the Bettiah Raj is impartible; and it was decided in two cases before this Board, namely, in the case of Sartaj Kuari v. Deoraj Kuari . [1888] 10 All., 272 = 15 I.A., 51 = 12 Jur., 213 = 5 Sar., 139 (P.C.), and again in the case of Gangadhar Rama Rao v. Raja of Pittapur . A. I. R., 1918 P. C. 81 41 = Mad., 778 = 47 I.C., 354 = 45 I.A., 148 (P.C.), that an impartible zemindari is the creature of custom, and it is of its essence that coparcenary in it does not exist. It follows from those decisions that, even on the appellant's view of the facts, he cannot succeed in this appeal.
For these reasons their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty that this appeal be dismissed and with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
