Back
1950 Supreme(All) 328
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHBAD
AGARWALA, P. L. BHARGAVA, JJ.
Vijaya Ramraj
Versus
Vijaya Ananda
F.A. No. 31 of 1948
Decided On : 24-10-1950
J.N. Takru, G.S. Pathak and V.K. Thirul Venketash, for Appellant; Govinda Das, P.L. Banerji and Krishna Shankar, for Respondents.
Headnote:
The Vizianagram estate was an ancient impartible estate descendible by custom to a single heir. Chitti Babu inherited the estate after Anand Gajpati in his right as an adopted son of Vijay Ram Raj and the will of Anand Gajpati did not have the effect of altering the line of succession and the estate remained as before an impartible Raj descendible by custom to a single heir. Chitti Babu was subject to the disabilities imposed by the Madras Impartible Estates Act II (2) of 1904. By reason of the provisions of S. 4 of the Act, liability or debt incurred by Chitti Babu under the document of 1912 could not enure beyond his lifetime. For the same reasons, the liability incurred by Alakh Narain under the document of 1928 could not enure beyond his lifetime and was not enforceable against the property in the hands of the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The Vizianagram estate was an ancient impartible estate descendible by custom to a single heir. Chitti Babu inherited the estate after Anand Gajpati in his right as an adopted son of Vijay Ram Raj and the will of Anand Gajpati did not have the effect of altering the line of succession and the estate remained as before an impartible Raj descendible by custom to a single heir. Chitti Babu was subject to the disabilities imposed by the Madras Impartible Estates Act II (2) of 1904. By reason of the provisions of S. 4 of the Act, liability or debt incurred by Chitti Babu under the document of 1912 could not enure beyond his lifetime. For the same reasons, the liability incurred by Alakh Narain under the document of 1928 could not enure beyond his lifetime and was not enforceable against the property in the hands of the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The Vizianagram estate was an ancient impartible estate descendible by custom to a single heir. Chitti Babu inherited the estate after Anand Gajpati in his right as an adopted son of Vijay Ram Raj and the will of Anand Gajpati did not have the effect of altering the line of succession and the estate remained as before an impartible Raj descendible by custom to a single heir. Chitti Babu was subject to the disabilities imposed by the Madras Impartible Estates Act II (2) of 1904. By reason of the provisions of S. 4 of the Act, liability or debt incurred by Chitti Babu under the document of 1912 could not enure beyond his lifetime. For the same reasons, the liability incurred by Alakh Narain under the document of 1928 could not enure beyond his lifetime and was not enforceable against the property in the hands of the appellant.
Issues: 1. Whether the Vizianagram estate was an impartible estate governed by the Madras Impartible Estates Act II (2) of 1904? 2. Whether Chitti Babu was a proprietor of an impartible estate within the meaning of S. 2 (3) of the Act? 3. Whether Alakh Narain was a proprietor of an impartible estate within the meaning of S. 2 (3) of the Act? 4. Whether the document of 1912 created a debt which was binding on the estate beyond the lifetime of Chitti Babu? 5. Whether the document of 1928 created a debt which was binding on the estate beyond the lifetime of Alakh Narain? 6. Whether the deed of release of 1944 released the pltfs claims under the deeds of 1912 and 1928?
Ratio Decidendi: The Madras Impartible Estates Act II (2) of 1904 applied to the Vizianagram estate and Chitti Babu and Alakh Narain were proprietors of an impartible estate within the meaning of S. 2 (3) of the Act. The document of 1912 created a debt which was binding on the estate beyond the lifetime of Chitti Babu because it was for the payment of maintenance allowance which Chitti Babu was bound to pay. The document of 1928 did not create a debt which was binding on the estate beyond the lifetime of Alakh Narain because it was not in discharge of a legal obligation to pay maintenance. The deed of release of 1944 did not release the pltfs claims under the deeds of 1912 and 1928.
Final Decision: The decree of the Court below decreeing the pltfs claim for Rs. 25,095-13-4 with proportionate costs and pendente lite and future interest at 3 per cent per annum against the deft. was affirmed.
Agarwala, J. :- This is a defendants appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of two sums of money which the plff. respondent claimed were payable to him under two deeds one of 1912 and the other of 1928.
2. The appellant is the present holder of an impartible estate known as the Vizyanagram Raj or Samasthanam in the State of Madras. The plff. resp. is his uncle usually residing at Banaras. A pedigree of the family will be of help in understanding the narration of events to be made hereafter :-
3. The Vizianagram estate which is admittedly an ancient impartible estate was, at one time, owned by Vijayram Raj III. He died in the year 1879 leaving a widow Alakh Rajeshwari and a son, Anand Gajpati, and a daughter who later became the Maharani Rewa. There was another son of Vijayram Raj III, Narain Gajpati who, however, had died in his fathers lifetime. On the death of Vijayram Raj III, Anand Gajpati became the Raja and the holder of the estate. On 22-7-1896, Raja Anand Gajpati executed a will the contents of which will be set out later. Under this will he bequeathed the entire estate to one Chitti Babu, who was his mothers brothers son. Less than a year later, i.e. on 28-5-1897, Raja Ananda Gajpati died without leaving any widow or child and Chitti Babu became the holder of the estate and was known as Vijayaram Raj IV. A few months later, on 18-12-1897, he was adopted by Alakh Rajeshwari to her husband Vijayaram Raj III. Alakh Rajeshwari died in the year 1902 and on her death certain collaterals of Ananda Gajpati challenged the adoption of Chitti Babu and instituted suit No. 18 of 1903 for a declaration that Chitti Babus adoption was invalid and that he had no more than a life interest in the estate and that there was intestacy as regards the remainder which therefore vested in them. They asserted that the estate was an impartible Raj governed by the law and custom of primogeniture. The Court held that although Chitti Babus adoption was invalid yet the will conferred upon him an absolute title and not merely a life estate. In the result the suit was dismissed. The plffs. of that suit appealed to the H. C. and Chitti Babu filed cross objections challenging the finding about adoption. In the High Court there was a compromise and on 12-3-1913 the Madras High Court passed an order in terms of the compromise declaring that Chitti Babu was validly adopted and was entitled to hold the estate as such adopted son and under the will of Ananda Gajpati.
4. The plff. respondent and his elder brother, Raja Alakh Narain, father of the present Raja, deft. appellant, were the two sons of Chitti Babu. On 28-10-1912 Chitti Babu executed a deed of trust in respect of the entire properties possessed by him - the impartible estate as well as his separate properties, conveying them to a trustee by the name of John Charles Hill Fowler and directing the trustee to convey the said properties to his eldest son, Raja Alakh Narain, on his attaining the age of twenty-one years and to pay to his second son, the plff. respondent, on his attaining majority and during his life time, a monthly allowance of Rs. 5,000 out of the rents, income and profits of the properties, which were the subject-matter of the trust. Chitti Babu died on 11-9-1922 and very soon thereafter, the trustee handed over the estate to Alakh Narain even before he had attained the age of twenty one. Alakh Narain, now having entered into possession of the estate, executed a deed of settlement in favour of his younger brother the Maharaj Kumar on 1-11-1922. Under this deed Raja Alakh Narain declared that the monthly allowance of rupees five thousand which was payable to Maharaj Kumar under the deed of 28-10-1912, executed by Chitti Babu, was inadequate to support the Maharaj Kumars rank and dignity as the Raja of Vizianagrams younger brother and that he desired to make a suitable additional provision for him settling upon him immoveable property known as the Banaras estate, and some other p
