Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Ramratna Singh and Anwar Ahmad JJ.
Bhaiya Ramanuj Pratap Deo
Versus
Lalu Maheshanuj Pratap Deo
Appeal From Appellate Decree No. 1055 of 1962 ;
Decided On : FEBRUARY 28, 1968
IMPARTIBLE ESTATE - INCIDENTS - RIGHT OF SURVIVORSHIP - ABOLITION OF CUSTOM OF IMPARTIBILITY - EFFECT - HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 - APPLICABILITY - JOINT FAMILY PROPERTY - CHARACTER OF IMPARTIBLE ESTATE - CHANGE IN LAW - EFFECT ON SUIT - NOTICE OF SUBSEQUENT EVENTS - POWER TO TAKE - COURT'S DUTY - STATUTORY TENANCY UNDER LAND REFORMS ACT - NATURE - POSSESSION OF IMPARTIBLE ESTATE - CHARACTER - ADVERSE POSSESSION - CLAIM AS CO-SHARER - RIGHT TO - JOINT POSSESSION AND MESNE PROFITS - ENTITLEMENT.
Fact of the Case:
The suit property was an ancestral impartible estate in the hands of Rudra Pratap Deo, the original plaintiff. The estate was governed by the rule of lineal primogeniture, and the junior members of the family were entitled to khorposh or maintenance grants. The estate was released from the purview of the Chota Nagpur Encumbered Estates Act in October 1945 and vested in the State of Bihar under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. Rudra Pratap transferred his interest in eight villages, including the suit property, to the defendant under an unstamped and unregistered document dated 14-4-1952. The State of Bihar did not recognize this grant, and the defendant was in possession of the suit land as a khorposhdar, not as a trespasser. Rudra Pratap died in September 1957, and his two sons and four widows (of whom the first son is the appellant and the others are respondents here) were substituted in his place as plaintiffs. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force on 17-6-1956, and impartible estates were abolished by this Act.
Finding of the Court:
The courts below decided the suit against the plaintiffs. Their findings were: (1) Rudra Pratap Deo had given his interest in the eight villages, including the suit property, in khorposh to the defendant, and in proof thereof executed the document dated 14-4-1952 in favor of the defendant. (2) The grant of this khorposh by Rudra Pratap Deo after the release of his estate from the management under the Encumbered Estates Act without the sanction of the Commissioner was void under Sec.12-A if the Act, and it was also void on the ground that after the vesting of the estate in the State of Bihar under the Land Reforms Act Rudra Pratap had become raiyat of the cultivated land under Sec. 6 of the latter Act and such raiyati right could not be transferred without a registered document on account of certain provisions of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act. (3) The defendant was in possession of the suit land as a khorposhdar not as a trespasser and, therefore, not liable tn be evicted on this ground alone. (4) The Nagaruntari Estate was an ancestral impartible estate in the hands of Rudra Pratap governed by the rule of lineal primogeniture. (5) Custom of impartibility of the estate did not survive after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act. 1956: and the court can take notice of the change in law during the pendency of the litigation (6) The Nagaruntari Estate became, after the commencement of the Act of 1956, an ordinary family joint property of the parties; and, therefore, after the death of Rudra Pratap, only his interest not the entire estate would pass to his sons and widows and, therefore, the defendant was in possession of the suit property as a co-sharer.
Issues: 1. Whether the custom of impartibility survived after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956? 2. Whether the court can take notice of the change in law during the pendency of the litigation? 3. Whether the Nagaruntari Estate became, after the commencement of the Act of 1956, an ordinary family joint property of the parties? 4. Whether after the death of Rudra Pratap, only his interest not the entire estate would pass to his sons and widows? 5. Whether the defendant was in possession of the suit property as a co-sharer?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The custom of impartibility of an estate does not survive after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 2. The court can take notice of the change in law during the pendency of the litigation in order to shorten litigation or to do complete justice between the parties. 3. An impartible estate becomes an ordinary family joint property of the parties after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 4. After the death of the holder of an impartible estate, only his interest, not the entire estate, passes to his sons and widows. 5. A person who was in possession of the suit property as a khorposhdar before the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, becomes a co-sharer in the property after the commencement of the Act.
Final Decision: The suit is decreed and the appeal is allowed accordingly in part: but, in the circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their own costs.
Ramratna Singh, J.
1. The facts giving rise to this appeal by the plaintiff are these. Bhaiya Rudra Pratap Deo, the original plaintiff, was the holder of an impartible estate known as Nagaruntari Estate in the district of Pakamau, the succession to which used to be governed by the rule of lineal primogeniture, the junior members of the family being entitled to khorposh or maintenance grants, subiect to payment of quit rent and also to resumption on extinction ot any heii in the male line. The estate was in charge of officials under the Chota Nagpur Encumbered Estates Act from March 1932 until it was released in October, 1945 The estates vested in the State of Bihar under tht Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 , in pursuance of a notification dated 5-11-1951. although on account of some litigation it came into the possession of the State Government sometime later.
2. The father of the defendant respondent No. 1 was the younger brother of Rudra Pratap Deo and he had been given some maintenance grant Rudra Pratap transferred his interest in eight villages as maintenance grant to the defendant under an unstamped and unregistered document dated 14-4-1952 It included eight villages, including villages Sigsigi and Patihari. But the case of Rudra Pratap was that the last named two villages were fraudulently included in the document by the defendant by bringing his (plaintiffs) employees in collusion with him (defendant) The State of Bihar did not. however, recognise this grant in respect of any of these eight villages on the basis of an enquiry under Sec. 4 (h) of the 1950 Act and in view of the provisions of Sec.12A of the Chota Nagpur Encumbered Estates Act, according to which the holder of an estate cannot, even after release from the purview of the Act, alienate any property appertaining to the estate without the previous sanction of the Divisional Commissioner.
3. Subsequently, there was a dispute between Rudra Pratap and the defendant regarding the possession of 170.53 acres of land appertaining to village Sigsigi giving rise to a proceeding under Sec.144 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which was converted into one under Sec.145, which was decided against the plaintiffs on 4-7-1955 and possession of the defendant over the suit land was accepted. Hence, the suit was instituted on 9-7-1955 by Rudra Pratap for recovery of possession of this area with mesne profits. The original plaintiff died in September 1957 and his two sons and four widows (of whom the first son is the appellant and the others are respondents here) were substituted in his place as plaintiffs. It may be also stated that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force on the 17th June, 1956; and impartible estatet were abolished by this Act.
4. Both the courts decided the suit against the plaintiffs Their findings are:
(1) Vhaita Rudra Pratap Deo had given his interest in the eight villages, including Sigsigi and Patihari in khorposh and in proof thereof executed the document dated 14-4-1952 in favour of the defendant.
(2) The grant of this khorposh by Rudra Pratap Deo after the release of his estate from the management under the Encumbered Estates Act without the sanction of the Commissioner was void under Sec.12-A if the Act, and it was also void on the ground that after the vesting of the estate in the State of Bihar under the Land Reforms Act Rudra Pratap had become raiyat of the cultivated land under Sec. 6 of the latter Act and such raiyati right could not be transferred without a registered document on account of certain provisions of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act.
(3) The defendant was in possession of the suit land as a khorposhdar not as a trespasser and, therefore, not liable tn be evicted on this ground alone.
(4) The Nagaruntari Estate was an ancestral impartible estate in the hands of Rudra Pratap governed by the rule of lineal primogeniture.
(5) Custom of impartibility of the estate did not survive after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act.
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
