1949 Supreme(SC) 44
Privy Council At Calcutta
Sir John Beaumont, Lord Macdermott , Justice Lord Normand, JJ.
Savitri Devi and others -Appellant
Versus
Ram Ran Bijoy Prasad Singh and others -Resopndent
Privy Council Appeal No. 9 of 1948
Decided On : 12-10-1949
H.L. Polak and Co, Douglas Grant and Co., A. Wort , W.W.K., D.N. Pritt, G. Dold, N. Hazra , Benod Lal, C.S. Rewcastle
The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity and binding nature of a compromise decree in property disputes, as well as the interpretation of the provisions of the Court of Wards Act regarding the appointment of guardians-ad-litem and the power of the Court of Wards to arrange a compromise.
Headnote:
Court of Wards - Property Dispute - Act IX [9] (BC) of 1879 - Summary of the relevant acts and sections discussed by the court: The judgment discusses the Court of Wards Act (Act IX [9] (BC) of 1879) and its provisions regarding the appointment of a guardian-ad-litem for a minor in property disputes. The court analyzed the appointment of guardians-ad-litem, the power of the Court of Wards to arrange a compromise, and the conflict of interest between the minor and the Court of Wards.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a property dispute over an ancient impartible Raj known as the Dumraon Raj. The dispute arose from the adoption of a son by the wife of the deceased owner, leading to a legal battle over the rightful heir to the estate.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the compromise decree dated 17th May 1912 was valid and binding on the plaintiff, dismissing the suit seeking to set aside the compromise decree. The court also analyzed the appointment of guardians-ad-litem, the power of the Court of Wards to arrange a compromise, and the conflict of interest between the minor and the Court of Wards.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the compromise decree, the appointment of guardians-ad-litem, and the conflict of interest between the minor and the Court of Wards.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the compromise decree was valid and binding on the plaintiff, and that there was no conflict of interest between the minor and the Court of Wards.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were ordered to pay the costs of respondents 1(A) and 1 (B).
Sir John Beaumont:-
This is an appeal by leave of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal from the judgment and decree of that Court in its civil appellate jurisdiction, dated 26th August 1946, affirming a judgment and decree of the same Court in its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, dated 4th September 1942, dismissing with costs the suit of the plaintiff which sought to set aside a compromise decree. No relief is claimed against respondents 2, 3 and 4 who have not appeared in the appeal.
2. The litigation relates to the title to an ancient impartible Raj known as the Dumraon Raj, which is said to be of the value of four crofts of rupees. The original plaintiff and defendant had a common ancestor in one Parbal Singh who died in the year A. D. 1672. Parbal had a grandson, Raja Horil Singh, who founded the Dumraon branch of the family, and a grand-son, Udwant Singh, who founded the Jagadishpur branch of the family. The last undisputed owner of the Dumraon Raj was Maharaja Sir Radha Prasad Singh (hereinafter referred to as ''Sir Radha").
3. On 12th March 1889, Sir Radha executed a deed poll whereby he empowered his wife, Maharani Beni Prosad Koer, to adopt a son, who might be a member of the Jagadishpur branch of the family, in the event of his dying without leaving male issue or without having adopted a son who should attain his majority.
4. On 17th December 1890, Sir Radha made a will confirming the power granted by the deed poll of 1889, and leaving the whole of his property to his wife for the term of her natural life. Sir Radha died on 5th May 1894, leaving him surviving his said wife, who on the death of Sir Radha entered into possession of the Dumraon Raj estate.
5. No action was taken by the Maharani with regard to the power to adopt a son until 12th December 1907, the day preceding that of her death, when it is alleged she adopted as a son to her late husband Srinivas Prasad Singh, sometimes called Jung Bahadur Singh, a member of the Jagadishpur branch of the family, who was a minor of the age of about five years, and who is hereafter referred to as "the minor." The Maharani died on 13th December 1907.
6. Immediately after her death, Keshava Prasad Singh (hereinafter referred to as "Keshava Prasad"), a member of the Dumraon branch of the family, who claimed to be the heir of Sir Radha according to the rule of lineal primogeniture, took possession of the Dumraon Raj Estate. But on 16th December 1907, the Board of Revenue, Bengal, made an order under the Court of Wards Act (Act IX [9] (BC) of 1879) hereinafter Called "the Act", declaring the minor to be minor under S. 6B of the Act and that the said Court of Wards had determined to take under its charge the person and property of the minor and directing that possession should be taken of the said person and property on behalf of the said Court.
7. On 7th March 1908, Captain J. B. Ruther. ford was appointed manager of the Dumraon Raj Estate under the Court of Wards, and duly took over charge and entered into possession of the said Estate. On 6th February 1909, Keshava. Prasad instituted suit No. 29 of 1909 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Shahabad. The principal defendant, in the suit was the minor by his guardian-ad-litem J. B. Rutherford who was also made a defendant. The suit is hereinafter referred to as "the original suit." The relief claimed was possession of the Dumraon Raj Estate and a declaration that the minor was not the adopted son of Sir Radha and had no right, title or interest in the said Raj.
8. On 12th August 1910, the learned Subordinate Judge gave judgment in the suit. He field that the Dumraon Raj was an ancient, ancestral, impartible Raj, which descended to a single male heir according to the rule of lineal primogeniture : that females were excluded by custom : that Keshava Prasad was the heir of Sir Radha, and that the Estate descended to him subject only to the life-estate of the Maharani. He held further that the adoption of the m