SHIVAPRASAD SINGH Vs. PRAYAGKUMARI DEBEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Durgaprasad Singh succeeded to the gadi of the Jharia Raj in 1899, on the death of his elder brother Raja Joymangal Singh. The family is governed by the Mitakshara school of Hindu law. By custom the raj is impartible, and succession to it is governed by the rule of lineal primogeniture. Raja Durgaprasad died on 7 March 1916(=24 Falgun 1322 B.S.), leaving three widows, Ranee Prayagakumari, Ranee Subhadrakumari and Ranee Hemkumari, but no issue. The three Ranees were the plaintiffs in this suit; and one of them, namely, Ranee Subhadrakumari having died since the suit was commenced, the other two are now on the record as plaintiffs, in their own rights and also as her heirs and legal representatives. Raja Durgaprasad had, on 27 August 1915, made a will, purporting to dispose of some of the properties in dispute; but no detailed reference to its particulars are necessary because although its genuineness is beyond question, the parties have not, at any stage of this litigation, sought to establish any right under the will but have all along pressed their respective claims on the basis of intestacy. In 1912, Raja Durgaprasad had made certain mokarrari grants for life in favour of his wives, the Ranees. By the will, he bequeathed to them a ten annas share of the jewellery and the cash that would be left by him at his death, and declared that the remaining six annas share thereof should form part of his zamindari, and he further provided that whoever should get the zemindari on his death would be bound to pay to each of his wives maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,600 per year. The allowance was to be payable in monthly instalments of Rs. 300 carrying interest at the rate of one per cent per mensem in case of default, and such was to form a charge on the estate. On the death of Raja Durgaprasad and within a few hours thereafter, Shivaprasad Singh, the defendant in this suit, was treated by the officers of the raj as the next rightful successor, and, his name being entered in the rokar of the estate, accounts began to be kept in his name. Shortly afterwards, disputes arose between him, and the widows. On 5 August 1916, three bantannamas were executed, one by each of the widows, whereby, for a consideration stated therein, they purported to acknowledge Shivaprasad Singh as the rightful successor of the late Raja and relinquished their claim as the heirs of their husband to all properties left by him. On the same day Shivaprasad Singh executed three khorposh deeds, one in favour of each of the three Ranees, wherein Rs. 300 a month was fixed as allowance for her maintenance and a charge for the amount on one-third of the raj was created. On 13 April 1917, each of the three Ranees purported to execute an ammukhtearnama conferring power-of-attorney upon Shivaprasad Singh.

(2.) On 6 March 1919, the present suit was commenced by the three Ranees as plaintiffs against Shivaprasad Singh as defendant. Shivaprasad Singh's claim to the succession was denied; it was alleged that the bantannamas were taken by practising fraud and undue influence, and that the ammukhtearnamas were also similarly obtained; and it was asserted that the three Ranees, as heirs of their husband, were entitled to succeed to the raj and all other properties left by him. In respect of the raj, it was also asserted, in the alternative, that if the three widows together were not entitled to it, at least the senior widow was so entitled. And a decree substantially in the nature of a decree for declaration of the plaintiffs title, as heirs to their deceased husband, and for recovery of possession of the estate and effects left by him, which, it was alleged, the defendant had wrongfully and fraudulently taken possession of, was asked for.

(3.) The suit was in the first instance, tried by the Subordinate Judge, Mr. N.K. Bose, whose judgment bears the date, 3 November 1921. From this decision two appeals were preferred, one (F, A. No. 194 of 1921) on behalf of the plaintiffs and the other (F.A. No. 51 of 1922) on behalf of the defendant. These appeals were dealt with by this Court (Chatterjee and Panton, JJ.) by a judgment, Prayag Kumari Debi V/s. Siva Prasad Singh. 1926 Cal 1. By this judgment, a part of the decision of the trial Court was affirmed and another part was set aside, while an inquiry was directed with regard to certain matters which had either been left undecided or which needed further investigation. The result of the appeals in this Court, barring certain minor matters of an interlocutory nature, was summarized in its judgment in nine clauses, (i) to (ix), of the portion containing its decretal order Clause (v) containing four sub-clauses (a) to (d). From the decision of the High Court, passed in the aforesaid appeals, both parties appealed to His Majesty in Council: P.C. Appeals Nos. 71 and 72 of 1925 were preferred by the defendant, and P.C. Appeal No. 79 of 1925 by the plaintiffs. These three appeals together with two others in which the defendant was the appellant, namely, P.C. Appeals Nos. 2 and 3 of 1923 which arose out of certain interlocutory matters but of which the particulars are no longer material, have all been disposed of by a judgment of the Judicial Committee, delivered on 7 April 1932: Shiba Prasad Singh V/s. Prayag Kumari Debi 1932 PC 216. By this judgment, their Lordships have ordered that the appeals preferred by the plaintiffs (No. 79 of 1925) and by the defendants (Nos. 71 and 72 of 1925) be allowed in part and that the decree of the High Court should be affirmed subject to certain directions and modifications. These directions and modifications have been enumerated in certain clauses, (1) to (5), Clause (5) itself consisting of three sub-clauses (i) to (iii). Of these, Clause (5), sub-Cl. (iii) merely contains a general order to give effect to the declaration and directions contained in their Lordships judgment. In the meantime, the inquiry directed by the High Court, as aforesaid, was held by Mr. M.N. Das, Subordinate Judge, who completed it by his decision dated 7 May 1927. From the decree that was drawn up in accordance with this decision the defendant has preferred an appeal (F.A. No. 207 of 1927) and the plaintiffs have preferred a cross-objection.