INDRAMANI DEVI Vs. RAGHUNATH BHANJA BIRBAR JAGADEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's appeal against the decision of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Puri decreeing the Plaintiff's suit for recovery of possession of certain properties described in the schedule attached to the plaint. The following geneological tree will show the relationship of the parties :

(2.) THE plaintiff was the proprietor of the well-known Khandayat estate of Haldia in Puri District (commonly known as the Raja of Haldia). THE said estate is said to be an ancient impartible estate descending in accordance with the rule of lineal primogeniture. THE founder was one Arm Biianj, a scion of Mayurbhanj Raj family who about 17 generations ago, came to Puri district, married the daughter of the then Raja of Puri and obtained the estate as her dowry. It is alleged by the plaintiff that his paternal uncle Ramchandra Bhanj was granted some lands by way of maintenance by the plaintiffs father Pitabash when he was the Raja of Haldia. Ramchandra died in 1943, leaving a widow (2nd wife) named Indramani Devi (defendant No. 1) and two daughters through her, viz., Hemlata (defendant No. 2) and Ratnamali (defendant No. 3). Through his first wife Ramchandra had a son named Braja Sundar whose widow is Annapurna Devi (defendant No. 5). Btaja Sundar also died in 1946. THE plaintiff alleged that according to the family custom, maintenance grants to the younger members (Bhayyas) of the proprietor's family which were locally known as 'Bhyya-Bhag' reverted to the parent estate on the failure of male heirs in the grantees line. It was further alleged that the female heirs, under the ordinary rule of Hindu Law were according to this special family custom, excluded from inheriting these maintenance grants. As Braja Sundar admittedly died issueless, the plaintiff claimed that the maintenance grants made in favour of his father by Pitabash reverted to Haldia Raj and that neither the widow and daughters of Ramchandra nor the widow of Braja Sundar had any claim to the same. It was admitted that the widows of Ramchandra and Braja Sundar were entitled to maintenance, Defendant No. 5 Annapurna Devi however executed a Nadabi deed in favour of toe plaintiff on the 1st September, 1949 and thus lost all interest in the property.

(3.) IN the village Note of Haidia Raj (Ex. 5) prepared by the Assistant Settlement Officer on the 28th August 1897 the following observations were made, about Haldia Raj :