Back
2002 Supreme(Ori) 480
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
R.K. Patra, L. Mohapatra, JJ.
RAJA BRAJENDRA KISHORE SINGH MANDHATA - APPELLANT
Versus
AMARENDRA KISHORE SINGH AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
First Appeal No. 190 of 1997
Decided On : 06-11-2002
B. Pal, B.M. Patnaik, C.R. Das and R. Sharma, for the Appellant; B.H. Mohanty, S.C. Misra, R.K. Nayak, B. Das and D.P. Mohanty, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is the validation of the gift deed and the dismissal of the claim based on the rule of primogeniture.
Headnote:
Primogeniture - Property Dispute - Evidence Act, Hindu Succession Act, O.L.R. Act - [Primogeniture] - [Property Dispute] - [Evidence Act, Hindu Succession Act, O.L.R. Act] - The court discussed the validity of a gift deed, the concept of primogeniture, and the application of various acts in a property dispute. The court found that the gift deed was valid and acted upon, and the rule of primogeniture was not proved. The court also considered the provisions of the Evidence Act, Hindu Succession Act, and O.L.R. Act in reaching its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a property dispute over the ownership of properties in the Ex-state of Nayagarh. The plaintiff claimed sole ownership based on the rule of primogeniture and disputed the validity of a gift deed executed by the late ruler in favor of the defendants' mother. The defendants denied the plaintiff's claim and asserted their lawful inheritance.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the gift deed was valid and acted upon, and the rule of primogeniture was not proved. It also determined that the plaintiff was not in possession of the disputed properties within 12 years prior to the suit, and the defendants' mother was in exclusive possession of the property since 1952. The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit based on these findings.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the gift deed, possession of the disputed properties, the rule of primogeniture, and the application of various acts such as the Evidence Act, Hindu Succession Act, and O.L.R. Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the gift deed was valid and acted upon, and the rule of primogeniture was not proved. It also found that the plaintiff was not in possession of the disputed properties within 12 years prior to the suit, and the defendants' mother was in exclusive possession of the property since 1952.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit based on the findings related to the gift deed, possession of the disputed properties, and the rule of primogeniture.
JUDGMENT :
L. Mohapatra, J. - Plaintiff is the appellant before this Court. This suit was filed for a declaration that the plaintiff is the sole owner of the properties described in Schedule 'A' and 'B' of the plaint and the defendants have no manner of right, title and interest therein, for rendition of accounts in respect of the usufructs from out of Schedule A and B properties as well as for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents or servants in exercising any right over the properties in any manner whatsoever and from withdrawing compensation payable in Land Acquisition Case Nos. 26/82 and 27/82 corresponding to Execution Case Nos. 7/88 and 8/88.
2. The dispute relates to title over the A and B schedule properties of Ex-state of Nayagarh which was a feudatory State under the sovereignty of British Crown which became independent from British Crown on all important matters as per the divergencies entered into between the British Crown and Ex-State of Nayagarh. The case of the Plaintiff is that though the successive Rulers of the Ex-State of Nayagarh were exercising limited powers excepting those which were exercised by the British Crown/Government of India, as per such powers sanction or prior approval for marriage of the heir apparent to the ruler and also in respect of other male and female members were required to be taken. The purpose behind the aforesaid practice was to ensure that it is only the legitimate child who succeeds to the throne for the purpose of approval by the British Crown and to avoid all kinds of disputes regarding succession. The further case of the plaintiff is that succession to the throne of State of Nayagarh was at all relevant times governed by the Rule of primogeniture. As per the aforesaid Rule the eldest male member succeeds to the throne and used to be recognized as such by the British Crown. The junior members of the Royal family had merely right of maintenance. It is pleaded that all the properties of the State of Nayagarh both movable and immovable get transferred by way of succession by virtue of rule of Primogeniture. It is also pleaded in the plaint that last male holder had limited rights over the said properties and the ruler had no right to alienate or gift the palace. At all relevant times there was clear distinction between the private properties of the ruler and the properties of the State of Nayagarh. According to the plaintiffs case the properties of the State of Nayagarh are the properties of subjects of the State and therefore the last male holder or the ruler had no authority to alienate the Palace in any Raja Brajendra K. Singh Mandhata V. Amarendra Kishore Singh manner. Raja Krishna Chandra Mandhata who was the last male holder of the State of Nayagarh had married the plaintiffs mother with the approval of the British Crown and the marriage expenses were also approved by the then political Agent Hemaraj Laxmi is the first wife of said K.C. Singh and the queen of the State of Nayagarh and the said Hemaraj Laxmi is the daughter of Maharaja Chandra Shamsher Jangabahadur Rana who was at one point of time Prime Minister of Nepal. Plaintiff was born on 4th of September. 1933 out of the said wedlock and according to the custom was recognised by all concerned as heir apparent and next in the line of succession of the said ruler and therefore was named as "Jubaraj". The said K.C. Singh Mandhata on attaining his majority on the 20th of July, 1933 became the Ruling Chief of Ex-State of Nayagarh with the approval of the British Crown and the political agent of Eastern State Agencies. In the year 1934 he went to Europe on health ground and returned in the year 1936. Sometime in the year, 1938/39 the plaintiff's father took the plaintiff's mother to Ranchi and both of them stayed in B.N.R. Hotel. But the plaintiff's father alone came back to Nayagarh to attend the affairs of the State and at the behest of some people did not bring back his wife as a result of which the
