RAJ BAJRANG BAHADUR SINGH Vs. THAKURAIN BAKHTI AJ KUCR
LAWS(SC)-1952-11-11
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on
November 07,1952
RAJ BAJRANG BAHADUR SINGH
Appellant
VERSUS
THAKURAIN BAKHTRAJ KUER
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
SH. DALIP KUMAR & ANR. VS. M/S SHREE GOPAL JEWELERS & ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2016-8-72] [REFERRED TO]K RAJESWARI VS. M V SHANMUGAM [LAWS(MAD)-2011-3-20] [REFERRED TO]
M.S. DHARMA RAJA AND ORS. VS. M.K. RAMA AMMAL AND ANR. [LAWS(MAD)-1977-9-17] [REFERRED]
THANGAVELU UDAYAR VS. PARAMASIVAM [LAWS(MAD)-1987-10-12] [REFERRED TO]
PUNNEN PUNNEN VS. VARKEY ANNA [LAWS(KER)-1959-2-6] [REFERRED TO]
SIVARAMAN NAIR VS. GOPALA MENON [LAWS(KER)-1968-8-22] [REFERRED TO]
RAMPYARI KUER VS. DULHIN BACHURAJ KUER [LAWS(PAT)-1964-10-7] [REFERRED TO]
GAURI SHANKER SAH VS. RAMCHANDER SAH [LAWS(PAT)-1969-4-4] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAMAL KANTI GUHA VS. MEENA BOSE [LAWS(SC)-2008-5-12] [REFERRED TO]
CAPT (RETD ) O P SHARMA & ANR VS. KAMLA SHARMA & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2008-3-387] [REFERRED]
MAJJERI LALLEMMA VS. JOGI PEDDAKKA [LAWS(APH)-1987-12-33] [REFERRED TO]
GOMEZ VS. GOMEZ [LAWS(KER)-1955-2-5] [REFERRED TO]
ANINDA SAHA VS. AMAL SAHA [LAWS(CAL)-2024-5-61] [REFERRED TO]
SHANTILAL BABUBHAI VS. BAI CHHANI [LAWS(GJH)-1972-2-7] [REFERRED]
S C M MOHAMMED VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(MAD)-1998-1-61] [REFERRED TO]
T. RAMESH AND OTHERS VS. LAXMAMMA AND OTHERS [LAWS(APH)-2017-6-59] [REFERRED TO]
VIMALA VS. B NARAYANASWAMY [LAWS(KAR)-1995-6-9] [DISTINGUESED]
P.V. SUBBAYYAN CHETTIAR VS. RAJARAM (MINOR BY HIS GRANDMOTHER AND GUARDIAN, KAMAKKAL) AND ANR. [LAWS(MAD)-1957-10-9] [REFERRED TO]
GAJARAJAN VS. S.GANDHIMATHI SELVAM [LAWS(MAD)-2020-2-383] [REFERRED TO]
KALIAPPAN VS. A K SOMASUNDARAM [LAWS(MAD)-2012-8-83] [REFERRED TO]
DEBOBROTO DUTTA VS. MADHURI GHOSH [LAWS(ALL)-2013-7-97] [REFERRED TO]
JASBIR KUMAR VS. KANCHAN KAUR [LAWS(DLH)-2017-2-191] [REFERRED TO]
AMARITA MARTINDALE VS. SANJAY MOHAN BAQAYA [LAWS(DLH)-2019-8-281] [REFERRED TO]
COL VINOD K MAYNE VS. BRIG DEEPAK K MYNE [LAWS(DLH)-2007-3-52] [REFERRED TO]
G NARAYANAN VS. R N RAJAGOPALAN [LAWS(MAD)-1986-10-22] [REFERRED TO]
MEHMA SINGH VS. DHAN KAUR [LAWS(P&H)-1985-11-16] [REFERRED TO]
SEETHAIAMMAL VS. RAMAKRISHNAN ASARI [LAWS(MAD)-2017-7-45] [REFERRED TO]
F M DEVARU GANAPATI BHAT VS. PRABHAKAR GANAPATHI BHAT [LAWS(SC)-2003-12-51] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. SUMAN LATA VS. SH. AMIT KUMAR AND ANR. [LAWS(DLH)-2016-7-216] [REFERRED TO]
UMA SHARMA VS. KAMAL KUMAR BHANOT [LAWS(DLH)-2010-5-152] [REFERRED TO]
KAMLA NIJHAWAN VS. SUSHIL KUMAR NIJHAWAN [LAWS(DLH)-2014-9-26] [REFERRED TO]
CHEEDELLA RADHAKRISHNA SHARMA AND ORS. VS. RADHAKRISHNAMURTHY AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2014-9-176] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDO VS. BALDEV SINGH [LAWS(HPH)-2019-7-53] [REFERRED TO]
HARI NARAYAN KHEDHAR VS. SWARKABAI PANDURANG KHEDKAR [LAWS(BOM)-2003-4-83] [REFERRED TO]
MAJ GEN RAJINDER SINGH CHOWDHRY VS. S MANJIT SINGH CHOWDHARY [LAWS(DLH)-2000-9-93] [REFERRED]
SURIYA RASHID (BEGUM) VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(SC)-1968-8-72] [REFERRED TO]
MANISHABEN ASHISHKUMAR PATEL VS. PUSHPABEN, WD/O.ARJUNBHAI KALIDAS PATEL [LAWS(GJH)-2013-7-181] [REFERRED TO]
KANWAL KRISHAN VS. RAJ KUMAR GUPTA [LAWS(DLH)-2007-9-370] [REFERRED TO]
RAMAN NAMBIAR VS. KRISHNAN NAMBIAR [LAWS(KER)-1957-8-36] [REFERRED TO]
BIRENDRANATH PAUL @ BARENDRA KRISHNA PAUL VS. SANKAR PAUL @ KALI KRISHNA PAUL [LAWS(CAL)-2015-6-64] [REFERRED TO]
MADHUSUDHAN MOHAPATRA VS. GOBIND SABAT [LAWS(ORI)-1964-7-7] [REFERRED TO]
PADMAJA AND OTHERS VS. M.B. JAISOORYA AND OTHERS [LAWS(APH)-1957-12-43] [REFERRED TO]
UMA SHARMA VS. KAMAL KUMAR BHANOT [LAWS(DLH)-2010-5-11] [REFERRED TO]
TEJO VS. CHHAPE RAM [LAWS(P&H)-1954-8-1] [REFERRED TO]
HAZARA SINGH VS. BANTA SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1958-4-2] [REFERRED TO]
RAJAT VIDYARTHI VS. NARENDRA GOPAL VIDYARTHI [LAWS(MPH)-2006-4-163] [REFERRED TO]
LYLA DARIUS JEHANGIR VS. BAKHTAWAR LENTIN [LAWS(BOM)-2006-12-89] [REFERRED TO]
Madhu Kohli VS. Suresh Khattar [LAWS(DLH)-2006-1-48] [REFERRED TO]
JABAMALAI MARIAMMAL AND ANR. VS. A. MADALAMUTHU THEVAR AND ANR. [LAWS(MAD)-1965-4-44] [REFERRED TO]
VYJAYANTHIMALA VS. SRINIVASA REDDY [LAWS(MAD)-2011-8-105] [REFERRED TO]
VIKRANT KAPILA VS. PANKAJA PANDA [LAWS(DLH)-2022-10-212] [REFERRED TO]
VEERABHADRAYYA AND ANOTHER VS. MYTRA BAI W/O RACHAYYA MAI LIKARJ UNMATH [LAWS(KAR)-2017-3-220] [REFERRED TO]
K SUBBAIAH VS. C N KRISHNAMACHARLU [LAWS(APH)-2010-12-57] [REFERRED TO]
SANKATHA PANDEY VS. BRIJ MOHAN PANDEY [LAWS(ALL)-1957-9-31] [REFERRED TO]
BANDOPANT SITARAM BAPAT VS. SHANKAR SITARAM BAPAT [LAWS(BOM)-2001-10-130] [REFERRED TO]
JIWAN DASS AND ANOTHER VS. CHAMAN LAL [LAWS(P&H)-1987-11-81] [REFERRED TO]
NAVNEET LAL ALIAS RANGI VS. GOKUL [LAWS(SC)-1975-12-37] [FOLLOWED]
GOVIND PRASAD LATH VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1975-3-9] [REFERRED TO]
SWARAN SINGH BANDA VS. MANPREET SINGH CHHATWAL [LAWS(DLH)-2009-2-97] [REFERRED TO]
YELLAMANCHILI CHINNABBAYI VS. YELLAMANCHILI SIVA PANCHAKSHARAMMA [LAWS(APH)-1958-12-22] [REFERRED TO]
MUHAMMAD BEARY VS. C S MAHADEVA SINGH [LAWS(KER)-1957-6-24] [REFERRED TO]
RAMAN NAMBIAR VS. KRISHNAN NAMBIAR [LAWS(KER)-1957-8-5] [REFERRED TO]
METPALLI MUTHAIAH VS. METPALLI LASUM BAI [LAWS(APH)-2014-1-26] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNAN NAIR VS. VASUDEVA PANICKER [LAWS(KER)-2004-7-46] [REFERRED TO]
RAMAN NAIR & OTHERS VS. V.S.E. VASUDEVA PANICKER & OTHERS [LAWS(KER)-2004-7-54] [REFERRED TO]
MAJ. GEN. RAJINDER SINGH CHOWDHARY VS. S. MANJIT SINGH CHOWDHARY [LAWS(DLH)-2003-4-99] [REFERRED TO]
SUBBEGOWDA VS. THIMMEGOWDA [LAWS(SC)-2004-4-66] [REFERRED TO ]
RAMKISHORELAL VS. KAMALNARAYAN [LAWS(SC)-1962-11-38] [REFERRED TO]
ESAKKIMUTHU VS. MANICKAVADIVOO [LAWS(MAD)-2009-11-677] [REFERRED TO]
KANHAIYA LAL VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION LUCKNOW [LAWS(ALL)-2019-11-233] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiff and is directed against a judgment and decree of the Chief Court of Avadh dated 4-9-1946, affirming, on appeal those of the Civil Judge, Bahraich passed in Regular Suit No 1 of 1941.
(2.)To appreciate the controversy between the parties to this appeal it would be necessary to state a few facts. One Raja Bisheshwar Bux Singh the father of the plaintiff and of the defendant's husband, was a taluqdar of Oudh, and the estate known as Gangwal Estate, to which he succeeded in 1925 on the death of the widow of the last holder, is one to which the Oudh Estates Act (I of 1869) applies. Raja Bisheshwar died on 16-10-1930, leaving behind him two sons, the elder of whom, Bajrang Bahadur is the plaintiff in the present litigation, while the younger, whose name was Dhuj Singh, has died since then, being survived by his widow Bakhtraj Kuer, who is the defendant in the suit. Shortly before his death, Raja Bisheshwar executed a will dated 11-9-1929, by which five properties, described in lists A and B attached to the plaint, were bequeathed to Dhuj Singh, the younger son, by way of making provisions for the maintenance of the said son and his heirs.
On the death of Raja Bisheshwar, the estate went to the plaintiff as his eldest son under the provisions of the Oudh Estates Act and Dhuj Singh got only the five properties mentioned above under the terms of his father's will. Dhuj Singh had no issue of his own and on his death in 1940 disputes arose in respect of these properties between the plaintiff on the one hand and Dhuj Singh's widow on the other. The plaintiff succeeded at first in having his name mutated as owner of these properties in the revenue records in place of his deceased brother, but the appellate revenue authority ultimately set aside this order and directed mutation to be made in the name of the defendant. The plaintiff thereupon commenced the suit out of which this appeal arises, praying for declaration of his title to the five properties mentioned above on the allegation that they vested in him on the death of Dhuj Singh and that the defendant could not, in law, assert any right to the same.
It may be stated here that four out of these five properties have been described in list A to the plaint and there is no dispute that they are taluqdari properties. The fifth item is set out in list B and admittedly this property is not taluqdari in its character. Besides lists A and B there is a third list, viz., C attached to the plaint, which mentions two other properties as being in possession of the defendant and in the plaint a claim was made on behalf of the plaintiff in respect to these properties as well, although they were not covered by the will of Bisheshwar. This claim, however, was abandoned in course of the trial and we are not concerned with it in the present appeal.
(3.)The plaintiff really rested his case on a two-fold ground. It was averred in the first place that Dhuj Singh had only a life interest in the properties bequeathed to him by Bisheshwar and on the termination of his life interest, the property vested in the plaintiff as the heir of the late Raja. In the alternative the case put forward was that even if Dhuj Singh had an absolute interest created in his favour under the terms of his father's will, the plaintiff was entitled to succeed to the taluqdari properties at any rate, under the provision of s. 14 (b) read with s. 22 (5), Oudh Estates Act.
(2.)To appreciate the controversy between the parties to this appeal it would be necessary to state a few facts. One Raja Bisheshwar Bux Singh the father of the plaintiff and of the defendant's husband, was a taluqdar of Oudh, and the estate known as Gangwal Estate, to which he succeeded in 1925 on the death of the widow of the last holder, is one to which the Oudh Estates Act (I of 1869) applies. Raja Bisheshwar died on 16-10-1930, leaving behind him two sons, the elder of whom, Bajrang Bahadur is the plaintiff in the present litigation, while the younger, whose name was Dhuj Singh, has died since then, being survived by his widow Bakhtraj Kuer, who is the defendant in the suit. Shortly before his death, Raja Bisheshwar executed a will dated 11-9-1929, by which five properties, described in lists A and B attached to the plaint, were bequeathed to Dhuj Singh, the younger son, by way of making provisions for the maintenance of the said son and his heirs.
On the death of Raja Bisheshwar, the estate went to the plaintiff as his eldest son under the provisions of the Oudh Estates Act and Dhuj Singh got only the five properties mentioned above under the terms of his father's will. Dhuj Singh had no issue of his own and on his death in 1940 disputes arose in respect of these properties between the plaintiff on the one hand and Dhuj Singh's widow on the other. The plaintiff succeeded at first in having his name mutated as owner of these properties in the revenue records in place of his deceased brother, but the appellate revenue authority ultimately set aside this order and directed mutation to be made in the name of the defendant. The plaintiff thereupon commenced the suit out of which this appeal arises, praying for declaration of his title to the five properties mentioned above on the allegation that they vested in him on the death of Dhuj Singh and that the defendant could not, in law, assert any right to the same.
It may be stated here that four out of these five properties have been described in list A to the plaint and there is no dispute that they are taluqdari properties. The fifth item is set out in list B and admittedly this property is not taluqdari in its character. Besides lists A and B there is a third list, viz., C attached to the plaint, which mentions two other properties as being in possession of the defendant and in the plaint a claim was made on behalf of the plaintiff in respect to these properties as well, although they were not covered by the will of Bisheshwar. This claim, however, was abandoned in course of the trial and we are not concerned with it in the present appeal.
(3.)The plaintiff really rested his case on a two-fold ground. It was averred in the first place that Dhuj Singh had only a life interest in the properties bequeathed to him by Bisheshwar and on the termination of his life interest, the property vested in the plaintiff as the heir of the late Raja. In the alternative the case put forward was that even if Dhuj Singh had an absolute interest created in his favour under the terms of his father's will, the plaintiff was entitled to succeed to the taluqdari properties at any rate, under the provision of s. 14 (b) read with s. 22 (5), Oudh Estates Act.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.