RAJA BRAJENDRA KISHORE SINGH Vs. AMARENDRA KISHORE SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF is the appellant before this Court. This suit was filed for a declaration that the plaintiff is the sole owner of the properties described in Schedule 'A' and 'B' of the plaint and the defendants have no manner of right, title and interest therein, for rendition of accounts in respect of the usufructs from out of Schedule A and B properties as well as for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents or servants in exercising any right over the properties in any manner whatsoever and from withdrawing compensation payable in Land Acquisition Case Nos. 26/82 and 27/82 corresponding to Execution Case Nos. 7/88 and 8/88.

(2.) THE dispute relates to title over the A and B schedule properties of Ex state of Nayagarh which was a feudatory State under the sovereignty of British Crown which became independent from British Crown on all important matters as per the divergencies entered into between the British Crown and Ex State of Nayagarh. The case of the Plaintiff is that though the successive Rulers of the Ex State of Nayagarh were exercising limited powers excepting those which were exercised by the British Crown/Government of India, as per such powers sanction or prior approval for marriage of the heir apparent to the ruler and also in respect of other male and female members were required to be taken. The purpose behind the aforesaid practice was to ensure that it is only the legitimate child who succeeds to the throne for the purpose of approval by the British Crown and to avoid all kinds of disputes regarding succession. The further case of the plaintiff is that succession to the throne of State of Nayagarh was at all relevant times governed by the Rule of primogeniture. As per the aforesaid Rule the eldest male member succeeds to the throne and used to be recognized as such by the British Crown. The junior members of the Royal family had merely right of maintenance. It is pleaded that all the properties of the State of Nayagarh both movable and immovable get transferred by way of succession by virtue of rule of Primogeniture. It is also pleaded in the plaint that last male holder had limited rights over the said properties and the ruler had no right to alienate or gift the palace. At all relevant times there was clear distinction between the private properties of the ruler and the properties of the State of Nayagarh. According to the plaintiffs case the properties of the State of Nayagarh are the properties of subjects of the State and therefore the last male holder or the ruler had no authority to alienate the Palace in any Raja Brajendra K. Singh Mandhata V. Amarendra Kishore Singh manner. Raja Krishna Chandra Mandhata who was the last male holder of the State of Nayagarh had married the plaintiffs mother with the approval of the British Crown and the marriage expenses were also approved by the then political Agent Hemaraj Laxmi is the first wife of said K.C. Singh and the queen of the State of Nayagarh and the said Hemaraj Laxmi is the daughter of Maharaja Chandra Shamsher Jangabahadur Rana who was at one point of time Prime Minister of Nepal. Plaintiff was born on 4th of September. 1933 out of the said wedlock and according to the custom was recognised by all concerned as heir apparent and next in the line of succession of the said ruler and therefore was named as 'Jubaraj'. The said K.C. Singh Mandhata on attaining his majority on the 20th of July, 1933 became the Ruling Chief of Ex State of Nayagarh with the approval of the British Crown and the political agent of Eastern State Agencies. In the year 1934 he went to Europe on health ground and returned in the year 1936. Sometime in the year, 1938/39 the plaintiff's father took the plaintiff's mother to Ranchi and both of them stayed in B.N.R. Hotel. But the plaintiff's father alone came back to Nayagarh to attend the affairs of the State and at the behest of some people did not bring back his wife as a result of which the plaintiff and his mother under the orders of Political Agent came to Nayagarh from Ranchi. After coming back from Ranchi, plaintiff's mother was ill treated both physically and mentally and it attained to such a proportion that under the advice of the political agent she had to settle down in Calcutta with the help of her parents and at'that time the age of the plaintiff's mother was only 26/27 years. The mother of said K.C. Singh belongs to the family of Raja of Hindol State and in that connection plaintiff's father was used to visit Hindol off and on and during such visit he developed intimacy with one Srimati Shoubhagyamanjari Devi who is the plaintiff's father's maternal uncle's daughter. The said Shoubhagyamanjari was also coming to Nayagarh and staying at Nayagarh due to the relationship between the two royal families. Out of such relationship, defendant No. 1 was born and due to serious threat to life and for safety of the plaintiff and his mother they had to stay at Ranchi or Calcutta on the advise of the Political Agent. After the British Rule came to an end in August, 1 947, the father of the plaintiff along with other rulers of the Eastern States entered into an agreement with the Government of India in which it was agreed that the feudatory State of Nayagarh will cease on from January, 1948 and in turn the Government of India assumed payment of privy purse to the ruler and heir apparent according to the custom and traditions. Rs. 8,000/ was sanctioned by the Government of Orissa annually Raja Brajendra K. Singh Mandhata V. Amarendra Kishore Singh for education and maintenance of the plaintiff (Jubraj) out of the said privy purse payable to the plaintiff's father. The said K.C. Singh Mandhata expired on 24th of June 1983 and on receiving the news of such sad demise the plaintiff rushed to Nayagarh and after his arrival according to the age old tradition and custom the plaintiff was made as Raja of Nayagarh by people of Nayagarh. When the plaintiff proceeded towards palace, he found it to be locked by the defendants and he was denied entry into the palace. In the year 1985, the plaintiff for the first time came to know that the defendants and their late Mother by exercise of undue influence had got executed a document purporting to be a deed of gift in favour of the defendants mother from the plaintiff's father in respect of the schedule A property where the place stands. It is further pleaded in the plaint that the father of the plaintiff was suffering from tuberculosis in the year 1934 and had gone to Switzerland for two years for treatment and returned to Nayagarh only in the year 1936. Taking advantage of the health condition of the father of the plaintiff and his weakness for the mother of the defendants she prevailed upon the plaintiff's father and got a deed executed in her favour. It is also pleaded, that the palace standing over A schedule properties of the plaint was constructed in the year 1937 38 out of the funds of Nayagarh State and had been shown in the budget expenditure of Nayagarh State. It is also stated that for construction of the Palace part of the funds were also provided by the mother of the plaintiff as loan. The State palace was illegally gifted to Shoubhagyamanjari but till filing of the suit the same was used as official residence of Ruler of Nayagarh and has been recognized as the Palace of the Ruler in the settlement records maintained by the Government of India. The further case of the plaintiff is that the defendants have inducted as monthly tenants in some parts of the properties described in schedule A of the plaint and have been illegally misappropriating the rents and therefore they are liable to render accounts for the same. It is also the case of the plaintiff is that the old palace had become a ruin for which the Palace in schedule A was constructed under the supervision of the mother of the plaintiff and during that period of the father of the plaintiff was staying in inspection Bungalow, which is also a part of A schedule property. The further case of the plaintiff is that B schedule properties are private properties of late Raja K.C. Singh and only in the year 1985 the plaintiff came to know that the property has been fraudulently recorded in the name of the mother of the defendants without any document of transfer of title in her favour. Therefore, the properties described in Schedule B devoided on the plaintiff as the successor. The said properties are subject Raja Brajendra K. Singh Mandhata V, Amarendra Kishore Singh matter of Land Acquisition Misc. Case Nos. 26/82 and 27/82 and the plaintiff is entitled to get compensation therefor. So far as C schedule properties are concerned, the plaintiff's case is that it is the Raja Bagicha which was the exclusive private property of Raja K.C. Singh but the defendant's mother got her name recorded in the Revenue records without any document and transfer of title and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to succeed to the same.

(3.) THE learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nayagarh on the pleading of the parties framed as many as 12 issues and dismissed the suit on the following findings.