MATA PARSAD Vs. NAGESHAR SAHAI
LAWS(BOM)-1925-7-34
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on July 30,1925

MATA PARSAD Appellant
VERSUS
NAGESHAR SAHAI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Ameer Ali, J. - (1.) THIS litigation relates to two properties named respectively Baragawn and Wali, one situated in the district of Hardoi and the other in Kheri, in the province of Oudh. Both belonged to one Raja Fateh Chand who died in 1873. After the annexation of Oudh they were re-granted to Fateh Chand and his name was included with regard to the Hardoi property under List II and in respect of the Kheri property under List v. prepared under Act I of 1869 (the Oudh Estates Act). To these Lists reference will be made more particularly later on in this judgment.
(2.) THE following genealogical table will explain the position of the parties in this case : Ram Sewak Ram ||----------------|-----------------| 11,1887)= Ram Dhah Lal Pram Dhan Lal Nar in Dhan Lal Chand |Gulab Rai ||-----------------| |Rajah Fateh October)Chand | Majlis Rai Dhanpat Rai (died Naubat Rai | | 4,1873)| | Raja Durga Prasad |Kanhaiya Lal |------------|----------| || Malik Tikait Chandika || Chand Rai Prasad || | |------------|| | Amir Chand Wazir Nov. | Janki Prasad (died Sept. (died | 26,1887) |----------|------------| || Madho Mata Prasad Kesho Prasad | Rani Chandra Kaur (widow)Prasad Plaintiff No.1 | (diedMarch) |19,1915) | Kuar Narindra Bahadur (died June 18,1905)= |Musammat Jagrani Kuar(widow) (died August 1,1917| Nageshwar Sahai(defendant respondentNo. 1) Claiming to be the adoptedson. Mata Prasad, the plaintiff No. 1, claims possession of the properties in question on various grounds, which will be set out later. The second plaintiff is the assignee of Mata Prasad of a share in the two estates. In this judgment wherever the plaintiff is mentioned it refers to Mata Prasad. Act I of 1889 came into force in January of that year ; and in March following Kaja Fateh Chand purported to make a will, under which be devised the Kheri property, in other words the Wali estate, to his eldest son, Amir Chand ; and the Hardoi property, the Baragawn estate, to the younger son, Wazir Chand. So far as appears on the record, Amir Chand and Wazir Chand appear to have been placed in possession of the two estates respectively. Kaja Fateh Chand died as already stated in 1873; but the will he had made in 1869 was never registered under the provisions of Section 13 of the Act, which requires a will in favour of a younger son of the Talookdar whose name does not appear in the third or fifth of the lists mentioned in Section 8 to be registered within a certain specified time. Thin section will be referred to later. Consequently, it is not disputed, that the bequest to Wazir Chand, the younger son, was invalid and inoperative. He, however, remained in possession of the Harden estate until his death on November 11, 1887.
(3.) AMIR Chand, the eldest son of Fateh Ohand, had died two months earlier, vis?., on September 26, 1887; as the will in his case did not require registration the devise in his favour was valid in law and operative. Wazir Chand left him surviving a widow named Chandra Kuar who appears, on his death, to have taken possession of the Hardoi property, Chandra Kuar died on March 19, 1915.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.