RAJESHWAR SINGH Vs. MAHARANI ADHIRANI KAMSUNDARI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DARBHANGA Raj in Bihar was one of the biggest Zamindaris. The Raj had huge properties in Darbhanga, Patna, Kolkata and other places. After the death of Maharajadhiraj Dr. Sir Kameshwar Singh (hereinafter referred to as ,,the Maharaja), the properties became embroidered in disputes.

(2.) MAHARAJADHIRAJ Rameshwar Singh had died leaving behind two sons and one daughter, namely Kameshwar Singh, Visheshwar Singh and Laxmi Devi. After the death of Maharajadhiraj Rameshwar Singh, his elder son namely Maharajadhiraj Kameshwar Singh succeeded by law of primogeniture of the impartible estate ,,Gaddi of late Maharajadhiraj Rameshwar Singh. The younger brother of Maharajadhiraj was given the property at Raj Nagar. Maharajadhiraj had three wives. His second wife Maharani Kameshwari Priya died during his life time prior to 1956. His younger brother also died during the life time of his brother Kameshwar Singh. The defendants-second parties are the grand sons and grand daughters of late Visheshwar Singh and the other defendants are the trustees created by a Will dated 5.7.1961 by Maharajadhiraj Dr. Sir Kameshwar Singh. Late Visheshwar Singh left behind three sons after his death, namely Kumar Jeeveshwara Singh, father of defendant nos. 2 to 8 in the plaint, Rajkumar Yajneshwar Singh, father of defendant nos. 9 to 11 and Subheshwara Singh father of the plaintiffs. Maharajadhiraj died in 1962 leaving two wives namely Maharani Raj Laxmi since deceased and Maharani Kamsundari, defendant no. 1. Maharajadhiraj created a trust on 5.7.1961 as he had no children from his three wives which has led to various disputes, which have been settled by the Honble Supreme Court. Late Pandit Laxmikant Jha was appointed as the sole executor of the Will. At present Maharani Kamsundari Devi and plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 are the trustees.

(3.) THIS Court must admit that the judgment of the Trial Court covers all the issues in great detail and at the outset it may be stated that this Court agrees with the reasoning and decision rendered by the Trial Court. However, this Court will refer to the arguments of the parties made before it to substantiate the findings of the Trial Court. It may be stated that the case is mainly based on the documentary evidence. The plaintiffs have led oral evidence, the defendant has not deposed in the Court below and has based her case on the documents produced in course of trial. Broadly speaking the arguments raised on behalf of the appellant are that the articles of Box No. 307 were not personal property of the senior Maharani. Infact the senior Maharani has sold most of her properties in 1969 and as such whatever was left over was the property of the estate of Darbhanga Raj. It is said that the Will in no certain terms has bequeathed a certain sum of money for both the Maharanis as well as made arrangements for their comfortable stay at the palace owned by Darbhanga Raj. Thus late Maharajadhiraj took care that his wives would be maintained and would have a comfortable life after his death in the said Will. He bequeathed defined sums of money to his two wives and as such whatever was left over was part of the estate. The plaintiffs have also argued that the jewelleries etc. actually belonged to late Maharajadhiraj and were kept in the Raj treasury to be utilized by them as and when required. Great pains have been taken to demonstrate before this Court that the senior Maharani had on several occasions called for her jewelleries and returned it back to the Raj treasury. It is also said that in the year 1969 the senior Maharani sold all her jewelleries and thus no longer had any personal property for her to inherit. It has been argued that defendant no. 1 has failed to show that the jewelleries contained in Box No. 307 were the ,,Stri Dhan of the senior Maharani inasmuch as the pleadings do not indicate as to how the senior Maharani acquired the jewelleries.