MAHARAJA SIR RAMESHVAR SINGH BAHADUR Vs. HOMESHVAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the High Court at Patna which has reversed a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Bhagalpore. The question is whether the appellant is entitled to execute a decree dated the 27th July, 1906, or whether his right to do so is barred by the Indian Limitation Act of 1908. The only provision of that Act which can apply is Article 182 of the Schedule, which prescribes three years from the date of a decree or order of a Civil Court as the time within which it must be enforced, subject to exceptions which do not affect the present case.

(2.) It appears that a former Maharaja of Darbhanga, who was the grandfather and predecessor-in-title of the appellant, made a Babuana grant of land to his younger son on condition that the Government revenue and cesses to which it was subject should be regularly provided for payment over to the Government, This younger son died leaving two sons of his own, Ekradeshvar and Janeshvar, who lived jointly for some time and then divided the property. Default in the payment to be provided having been made, the then Maharaja, who was the elder brother of the appellant, brought a suit in 1898 to recover the arrears due. During the pendency of this suit the appellant succeeded as Maharaja, and an arrangement was come to under which the shares and liabilities of the two younger brothers in the Babuana were defined. According to this arrangement the share in the Babuana of the defaulter was to be in the first place liable for sale to realise the amount due. In 1905 the appellant brought another suit against Janeshvar for Ra. 18,738-15-6 due for arrears. Ekradeshvar was made a party. During the pendency of this suit Janeshvar died, in April 1906, and a dispute arose between his widow and Ekradeshvar as to the succession to Janeshvar s share. In May 1906 the appellant applied to have Ekradeshvar s name substituted as defendant for that of Janeshvar, on the footing that, according to the Kulachar or custom, the former had succeeded to him in the property in question. In May 190G an order was made to that effect, but the widow, who was in possession and claimed to be entitled, was declared not to be bound by any decree passed in the suit, nor was her interest to suffer thereby. Ekradeshvar having admitted the principal claim of the appellant, on the 27th July, 1906, a decree was made against him for the sum above mentioned and costs. The decree did not provide that he was to be personally liable, but declared that the decretal amount was to be realised by the sale of the property belonging to Janeshvar and left in Ekradeshvar s possession, but the appellant was not enabled to make any portion of the property of Janeshvar which was in the possession of any one else liable for the decree.

(3.) On the death of Janeshvar, in April 1906, his widow had obtained possession of his share of the Babuana property. A suit was brought in the Civil Court by Ekradeshvar against the widow, claiming that, in accordance with the custom, the property was his. On the 15th August, 1908, the Subordinate Judge decided in his favour. But on the 2nd August, 1909, the High Court at Calcutta (execution having been stayed mean-time) reversed this judgment. Ekradeshvar then appealed to the King in Council, and this Board, on the 22nd July, 1914, reversed the judgment of the High Court and decided in his favour. The property in question had remained throughout in the possession of the widow, and it was not until after the judgment of the Privy Council that Ekradeshvar obtained Possession.