DEBENDRA NARAIN ROY Vs. JOGENDRA NARAIN DEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals have arisen out of two suits which were instituted by the respective plaintiffs for recovery of possession of properties which, even apart from the entity which they collectively form under a recent enactment, have for a long series of years been popularly known as constituting the Bijni Raj. The properties, with the exception of a few solitary items which are comparatively recent acquisitions, lie in the Province of Assam and are extensive and valuable, covering an area of 1200 sq. miles and yielding a gross annual income of over 5 lacs of rupees. The Rajas of Bijni belong to a very ancient house which may be traced as far back as the fifteenth or sixteenth century. The Maharaja of Cooch Bihar in Bengal still represents the main line of this dynasty, and the Rajas of Darrang, Sidli and Bijni also belong to the same stock. History traces the House to an aboriginal tribe of Kochos or Rajbansis who rose to power and who on the dismemberment of the ancient Hindu kingdom of Kamrup with its capital at Gauhati by repeated Mahomedan invasions, founded a kingdom which was at one time co-extensive with it. (See Hunter's Imperial Gazetter of India, Vol. 1, p. 240.) With successive changes of status, the Bijni Raj, which possibly was a paramount power at its inception, became a feudatory State, at first under the Mahomedans, then under the Ahoms, again under the Mahomedans and later on under the Rajas of Bhutan: and after the Bhutan war of 1864 it came to be regarded as a hereditary zemindari. The members of the Raj family call themselves Shivabansis and although it has been a matter of controversy between the parties in the present cases as to whether or not they are governed by the Hindu Law, it is not disputed that in the matter of succession they are governed, as well, by a customary law and certain Kulachar or family customs and usages.

(2.) The history of the Raj, with which we are concerned for the purposes of these appeals, opens with the death of the last male holder of the Raj, Raja Kumud Narain. This Raja died intestate on 9 March 1883 without any male issue and leaving him surviving two widows, Rani Siddheswari and Rani Abhoyeswari, and a daughter, Sikhareswari who died soon after. The two widows obtained possession of the estate, but disputes arose between them leading to a suit, No. 10 of 1887, commenced by Rani Abhoyeswari against Rani Siddheswari for possession of the Raj on declaration of her title. On 17 May 1891, while this suit was pending on appeal, Rani Siddheswari died. Rani Abhoyeswari thereafter continued in possession of the estate till her death on 17 October 1918. On her death the Deputy Commissioner of Goalpara stepped in and took possession of the Raj on the view that one Jogendra Narain, son of Raja Kumud Narain's brother Kirti Narayan, was entitled to the Raj, while one Heramba Prasad Barua, son of Rani Abhoyeswari's brother Bhabani Prosad Barua, was entitled to the personal estate of the said Rani. The said Jogendra Narain being a lunatic, the Court of Wards, Assam, assumed charge of the Raj on 5 December 1918 and has since then retained possession.

(3.) Before referring to the two suits which have given rise to the appeals, it is necessary to refer to two other suits which were previously instituted. In 1919 one Bhairabendra Narain and one Udai Narain, since deceased, who trace their descent from Maharaja Shib Narain, a common ancestor of theirs and of Raja Kumud Narain, instituted a suit at Alipur, District 24- Parganas, being Suit No. 225 of 1919, against Raja Jogendra Narain and others for recovery of possession of the Raj on declaration of their title thereto. In 1920 one Samarendra Narain instituted another suit against the Raja for similar relief at Dhubri, District Goalpara, and that suit was subsequently transferred to Alipore, District 24-Parganas, and numbered as T. Suit No. 51 of 1922. Samarendra Narain having died, his sister's son Sourendra Narain was substituted in his place as plaintiff. On 25 October 1930 Suit No. 51 of 1922 was dismissed. On the same day petitions of compromise were filed in Suit No. 51 of 1922 and Suit No. 225 of 1919 as between Raja Jogendra Narain and the plaintiffs in the two suits, namely Bhairabendra Narain and Sourendra Narain. Eventually, on 22 December, 1930, the two suits were disposed of in accordance with the compromise. To the terms of the compromise reference will be made hereafter. The two suits out of which the appeals have arisen are: T. Suit No. 84 of 1930 which has given rise to Appeal No. 171 of 1933 and T. Suit No. 164 of 1930 from which Appeal No. 205 of 1933 has emerged.