MIRZA RAJA PUSHPAVATHI VIJAYARAN CAJAPATHI RAJ MANNE SULTAN BAHADUR RAJKUMAR PUSHAVATI VISWESWARA GAJAPATHI RAJ SHRIMATHI RANI PUSHAVATHI VIDYAVATHI DEVI VARU DIED RANI PUSHAVATHI LALITHA KUMARI DEVI DOWAGER Vs. PUSHAVATHI VISWESWAR CAJAPATHIRAJ RAJKUMAR OF VIZIANAGRAM:MIRZA RAJA PUSHPAVATHI VIJAYARAM GAJAPATHI RAJ MANNE SULTAN BAHADUR :MIRZA RAJA PUSHPAVATHI VIJAYARAM GAJAPATHI RAJ MANNE SULTAN BAHADUR :MIRZA RAJA PU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This group of eight appeals which has been brought to this Court with a certificate issued by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, arises out of a partition suit filed by the plaintiff Viziaram Gajapathi Raj II against his younger brother Visweswar Gajapathi Raj, Defendant No. 1, his mother Vidyavathi Devi, Defendant No. 2, his uncle Sir Vijayanand Gajapathi Raj, Defendant No. 3, and his grnad-mother Lalitha Kumari Devi, Defendant No. 4. The parties to this litigation are members of the Vizianagaram family which owns a very large estate. This estate is impartible and devolves by primogeniture. The relevant genealogy of the family which is set out at the end of this judgment clearly brings out the relationship between the parties, and shows at a glance how the Vizianagaram Estate was held by different holders from time to time. Narayana Gajapathi Raj may be regarded as the founder of the family. His son who succeeded to the estate on the estate on the death of his father in 1845 can claim to be the real maker of the fortunes of this family. He managed the estate from 1845 to 1879 and during the course of his management he bought a large amount of property, movable and immovable including a large estate in and around Banaras. At his death he left behind him his only son Ananda Gajapathi Raj and his daughter Appala Kondayamba I. Appala Kondayamba I subsequently became the Maharani of Rewa. Ananda Gajapathi Raj died issueless on 23rd May 1897. Before his death, he had executed a will bequeathing all his properties to his maternal uncle's son Chitti Babu, Later on December 18, 1897, Ananda Gajapathi Raj's mother Alak Rajeswari I adopted Chitti Babu to her husband, so that as a result of his adoption, Chitti Babu became the adoptive brother of Ananda Gajapathi Raj who had executed a will in his favour before his death. It appears that Chitti Babu had been brought up in the Vizianagaram family and when Ananda Gajapathi Raj executed his will, it was anticipated that Chitti Babu would, in due course, be adopted by Alak Rajeswari I. Alak Rajeswari I died in 1901 after executing a will by which she gave a life estate in her properties to her daughter, the Maharani of Rewa, and the remainder to the childen of Chitti Babu. On October 28, 1912, Chitti Babu executed a Trust Deed in favour of a trustee for the benefit of his minor son Alak Narayana, subject to payment of maintenance to maintenance holders and payments due to his creditors. On December 14, 1912, the Maharani of Rewa died, but before her death, she had executed a will bequeathing all properties to Chitti Babu for life and the remainder in equal shares to Alak Narayana and his younger brother Vijayananda Gajapathi Raj. During Chitti Babu's life-time the Impartible Estates Acts passed by the Madras Legislature in 1902, 1903 and 1904 came into force. Chitti Babu died on September 11, 1922. On his death, Alak Narayana succeeded to the estate.

(2.) In 1935, the Vizianagaram Estate and the other properties belonging to Alak Narayana went under the management of the Court of Wards and continued to be in such management till they were handed over to Alak narayana's son Viziaram Gajapathi Raj, the present plaintiff, in 1946, Alak Narayana having died on October 25, 1937. During the time that the estate was being managed by the Court of Wards, Vijayananda Gajapathi Raj, defendant No. 3 made a claim before the Court of Wards for his half share in all the properties of Chitti Babu except the impartible estate. The Court of Wards referred this claim to Sir D' Arcy Reilly, a retired Judge of the Madras High Court for enquiry. Sir D'Arcy accordingly held an enquiry and submitted his report to the Court of Wards. Thereafter the claim of defendant No. 3 was settled by compromise and on October 9, 1944, defendant No. 3 executed a deed of release in favour of the plaintiff and Visweswar Gajapathi Raj, defendant No. 1 who were then represented by the Court of Wards. Under the terms of this release deed, defendant No. 3 received a payment of a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- and a further sum of Rs. 54,193/- and, in turn, relinquished all his claims to any share in the movable and immovable properties of Chitti Babu including properties which he had alleged were joint family properties. That is how the dispute between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 on the one had and their uncle, defendant No. 3, was amicably resolved.

(3.) In 1948, the Madrs Legislature passed the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (No. 26 of 1948) (hereinafter called the Act), and persuant to the material provisions of the said Act, a notification was published in August, 1949 by which the Vizianagram Estate was taken over by the State as from September 7, 1949. Since the taking over of the estate by the State was apprehended to lead to disputes between the parties, the plaintiff chose to file the present suit No. 495 of 1949 on the file of the High Court of Madras for partition of the joint family properties. In this suit, he claimed that large number of immovable properties and a substantial number of jewels were impartible, whereas the other properties, both movable and immovable, were partible. The High Court of Madras passed a preliminary decree for partition in this suit on September 11, 1950. This preliminary decree declared that the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 were each entitled to 1/3rd share in the partible properties of the joint family of which they were members along with the deceased Alak Narayana. As the law then stood, defendant No. 2 was not entitled to any share in the agricultural properties of the family, and so, in the said properties plaintiff and defendant No. 1 were held entitled to 1/2 share each.