RANJIT SINGH RAO(MAJOR) Vs. RAJA BAI SAHEBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two appeals by certificate against the common judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, October 28, 1960 and arise out of a suit filed by one Shrimati Rajabai Sahiba (since deceased) widow of the late Najajirao Phalke, a Jagirdar of the erstwhile Gwalior State. The suit was directed against Major Ranjitsingh Rao Phalke. The Plaintiff and the Defendant are Appellants, each in his own appeal, with the other side as the Respondent.

(2.) NAJAJIRAO Phalke died on January 15, 1938 leaving no Male heir. His estate was admittedly governed by the rule of primogeniture, Najajirao Phalke, it appears, had proposed to adopt a heir to himself, but his application remained pending for sanction till his death. Immediately after the death of Najajirao, the Court of Wards of Gwalior State under directions of the Muntazim Jagirdaran took charge of the estate of Najajirao. The original order was made on February 17, 1938 and the charge was completed on March 7, 1938. Exs. A -19 to A -40 are the lists of the movables which were found with Rajabai Sahiba. All the lists were signed by her and she added that the movable property was in her custody. The Court of Wards also drew up a list of immovable property which consisted of a residential Bada, a Cinema hall called Chhaya Talkies with two shops attached to the Cinema, eight other houses and fifteen shops, Ex. A -62 showed the position of cash. The lists of articles in the Jamdirkhana and Farashkhana were not drawn up till much later, as these do not appear to have been prepared till 1940. On December 6, 1940, the Muntazam Jagirdaran wrote to Rajabai Sahiba (Ex. P -4) that the Maharaja had not agreed to the proposal for the adoption of Ramchandra Patankar, son of the daughter of Najajirao Phalke but was willing to accord his permission if a boy from the Phalke family was adopted. Rajabai Sahiba appears to have been a lady of considerable determination. She declined to agree to the proposal of the Maharaja with dire consequences to herself. On November 22, 1941, the Maharaja issued an order that the building of the Cinema with its compound should be transferred by the Court of Wards to the Public Works Department and the Public Works Department should pay to the Court of Wards a sum of Rs. 12,000/ - to be credited to the account of the Sansthan. The Court of Wards communicated the order of the Maharaja to Rajabai Sahiba but she did not send him any reply. The matters again seems to have rested till we reach the year 1947. On June 14, 1949, the Maharaja made an order that Major Ranjitsingh Rao Patankar (who is the Defendant in the suit) was appointed as the successor of the Sansthan and Jagir of the last Sardar Nejajirao Phalke. The order was communicated by the Jagir Minister to Ranjitsingh Patankar. Two days later, the office of the Muntazim Jagirdaran ordered that the shops near Chhaya Talkies should be taken over by the Court of Wards and the title to the property should be investigated. This order was communicated to Rajabai Sahiba but she took no action. The decision seems to have been taken by July 25, 1947. On June 19, 1947, the Muntazim Jagirdaran informed Rajabai Sahiba that the proposal to adopt a boy of her choice had been rejected by the Darbar and that Major Ranjitsingh Rao Patankar the step -son of Najajirao's daughter was appointed as the successor to the Jagir and the Sansthan. A maintenance allowance of Rs -500 per month to Rajabai Sahiba and Rs. 200/ - per month to her unmarried daughter Manoramabai was simultaneously sanctioned. It was stated that the charge of Sansthan and Jagir would be handed over to the successor. Next day, notices were sent to the tenants not to pay rent to Rajabai Sahiba. Rajabai Sahiba left Lashkar for Poona on June 22, 1947, and this news was communicated to the Darbar. On July 3, 1947, the Muntazim Jagirdaran communicated to Rajabai Sahiba the orders of the Maharaja dated June 14, 1947 and also informed her about the Nemnook (maintenance allowance) granted to her and her daughter. Rajabai Sahiba must have known about it earlier, because she had left Lashkar for Poona. On August 8, 1947, the Muntazim Jagirdaran wrote to Rajabai Sahiba at Poona that as she had left Lashkar without obtaining the permission of the Maharaja, the nemnook was being stopped and that she was not to return to Lashkar. On September 10, 1947 the Maharaja wrote a personal letter to Ranjitsingh Rao Patankar saying that the Chhaya Talkies and the shops were thenceforward to belong to him and by a notification dated November 27, 1947, he ordered that Ranjitsingh Rao Patankar was thenceforward to be known as Ranjitsingh Rao Phalke. The Muntazim Jagirdaran then took over possession of the houses and the shops under the Maharaja's order dated January 19, 1948. Under that order the Public Works Department was asked to return the Chhaya Talkies and the two shops to the Phalke Sansthan and a sum of Rs. 23,000/ - and odd lying with (he Court of Wards was to be returned to the Public Works Department. A sale -deed of the Chhaya Talkies and the two shops was executed on behalf of the estate in favour of Ranjitsinghrao Phalke on March 12, 1948. Rajabai Sahiba made a representation to Sardar Vallabhai Patel on November 6, 1948 with no result, and then, after serving a notice, brought the present suit on March 31, 1951. To the plaint, she appended a list of immovable properties Schedule -A and movable properties Schedule -AA which she claimed as the private property of her husband Najajirao Phalke and to which she said, she had succeeded under the general law.

(3.) THE District Judge, Gwalior decreed the suit with costs in respect of all the scheduled properties and ordered Maj. Ranjit Singh to place Rajabai in possession of them. Alternatively, he ordered that if any item of the movables was not specifically delivered, its price mentioned in Schedule AA 2 must be paid. He also ordered an inquiry into mesne profits accrued prior to the institution of the suit from the date of taking over of possession of the properties. However, the District Judge held that as the property was handed over in the first instance to the Court of Wards, no claim for mesne profits could be raised for the period of the management by the Court of Wards. The claim for mesne profits of the cinema house and the adjoining shops prior to Major Ranjit Singh's possession was not accepted. In other words, mesne profits were ordered from the date Major Ranjit Singh's possession commenced.