JAYVANTRAO Vs. PT CHANDRA KANT RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal a rises out of a suit for partition of properties in the family of one Lalaji Ramchandra who was the common ancestor of the parties to the suit. He hard two sons. Govindraoji and Motilal alias Krishnaraoji. The plaintiffs/appellants and the non-contesting pro forma respondents are the descendants of Motilal, while the contesting respondents are the descendants of Govindraoji, the principal one being Chandrakant Rao who was defendant No. 1 in the suit. The appellants sought partition of all the family properties, including eight villages known as "the Sarola Jagir" which were situated in the erstwhile State of Kota. The trial Court dismissed the suit in its entirety, holding that none of the properties in suit was ancestral property. On appeal by the present appellants, the High Court of Rajasthan upheld the dismissal of the suit insofar as the appellants had claimed a share in the eight villages forming the Sarola Jagir, while the suit in respect of the other properties was decreed and a preliminary decree passed in respect of those properties. The appellants have come up to this Court in this appeal, by certificate granted by the High Court, against the order of the High Court refusing to grant partition of the eight villages of the Sarola Jagir.

(2.) In order to appreciate the point raised in this appeal, the history of this Jagir in this family may be recited briefly. Lalaji Ramchandra and his eldest son Govindraoji were awarded this Jagir by means of a Parwana, dated 8th April, 1838 issued by His Highness Maharao Ramsingh, Ruler of Kotah. It appears that the Maharao had contracted debts with the family of Lalaji Ramchandra even in the time of his ancestors and at the relevant time, the amount of debt exceeded Rs. 9 lakhs. This debt was guaranteed by the British Government. In lieu of this debt, this Jagir, which was already being enjoyed by Lalaji Ramchandra with certain limitations, was given jointly to him and his son Govindraoji stating that it was being conferred in perpetuity and was always to remain from sons to grandsons and was to be free from all taxes which were being exacted up to that time, such as Barar and Sewai. At the same time, Govind Raoji executed a deed of release by which he accepted the adjustment of the amount due from the Maharao against this grant of Jagir. These documents thus show that this Jagir was originally granted by Maharao Ramsingh, Ruler of Kotah, jointly in the names of Lalaji Ram Chandra and his son, Govindraoji in lieu of the debt which the Maharao owed to them. Subsequently, this property was treated as property of the joint family of Lalaji Ramchandra. Motilal the second son of Lalaji Ramchandra, was born after this grant and his name was also mutated against the Jagir villages. On the death of Govindraoji the name of his adopted son, Ganpat Raoji, was brought in, while Motilal, the uncle, managed the property on behalf of the family. Motilal executed a will in respect of his properties including these villages, specifically stating that half of this property belonged to Ganpatraoji while half would belong to his adopted son, Purshottam Raoji After the death of Motilal Ganpatraoji became the manager of the property and Purshottam Raoji's name was also entered against this property. On the death of Ganpat Raoji, the name of his eldest son Chandrakant Rao was mutated, while Purshottam Raoji in the capacity of the eldest member of the family, started managing the property. The property thus remained in the family, being treated as joint family property and, even during the years between 1852 and 1868 when efforts were made by the Maharao of Kotah to dispossess this family, the British Government had intervened to ensure that the property remained with this family, insisting that the Maharao could only resume the Jagir on repayment of the loan in respect of which discharge had been obtained when this Jagir was conferred. The property was thus continued to be treated as joint family property until the death of Purshottam Raoji when a question arose as to the mutation of names of his descendants in his place. Chandrakant Rao desired that his name alone should be shown as the holder of this Jagir and, on 22nd October, 1937, gave a statement before the Revenue Commissioner claiming that the eldest son in the eldest branch had the right over the Jagir accord to the custom and usage in Rajputana and, consequently mutation in the records should be in his name alone. A report was sent by the Revenue Commissioner and the matter was dealt with by the Maharao of Kota himself in Mehakma Khas. The order of the Maharao on that report was passed on 22nd January, 1938. By this Order, a direction was made that this Jagir, like all other Jagirs, should be given the status of an impartible estate and it should be given proper shape by being liable to render 'Chakri' and 'Subhchintki' to the Ruler. It was further ordered that the Jagir will be governed by the rule of primogeniture, so that Chandrakant Rao alone would be held to be the Jagirdar. As a result, all these eight villages of the Sarola Jagir came to be shown as the property of Chandrakant Rao alone.

(3.) The claim of the plaintiffs in this suit was that the Jagir having been joint Hindu family property, the rights of the plaintiffs, who are the successors-in-interest of Purshottam Raoji, cannot be defeated by the order of the Maharao dated 22nd January, 1938 and, consequently, the appellants together with the pro forma respondents who are also descendants of Purshottam Raoji are entitled to 1/2 share, whereas the other 1/2 share only can be claimed by the contesting defendants, including Chandrakant Rao, who are descendants of Ganpatraoji. Both the trial Court and the High Court have held that, after the order of the Maharao of Kota dated 22nd January, 1938, this Jagir came to be governed by the rule of primogeniture, with the result that Chandrakant Rao alone was the owner of this property, while all other members of the family could only claim maintenance out of this property. Consequently, the claim of the appellants for a share in these villages on partition was negatived. It is the correctness of this decision that has been challenged before us.