RAM SUNDAR MAL Vs. COLLECTOR OF GORAKHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiffs appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession of four villages together with a sitting room called nashistagah. The suit relates to a part of the estate known as Majhauli Raj. The plaintiffs in the suit are transferees from Balbhaddar, who claimed through his deceased father Indarjit to have succeeded to this estate. Two suits had been filed, viz., suit No. 20 and suit No. 21 of 1923, the first one by the claimant Balbhaddar himself and the second by his transferees. The main suit which related to the bulk of the estate was compromised. The present appeal arises out of the second suit No. 21.

(2.) In the plaint it was stated that Majhauli estate is a very ancient impartible estate, which was founded by Raja Bishwa Sen a long time ago. A long genealogical table was attached to the plaint which shows that the claimant is more than 100 generations from the founder, whose time might very well go back 2,000 years. The last male holder was Raja Kaushal Kishor, who died on 7th January 1911, leaving two widows, Rani Shyam Sunder and Rani Janki Kunwari surviving him. He left no child. Rani Janki Kunwari died in 1917 and the estate is in the possession of the Court of Wards, who hold charge of its on behalf of Rani Shyam Sunder. The plaintiffs alleged that according to the genealogical table sat up by them the succession opened to Indarjit, the father of Balbhaddar, on the death of Raja Kaushal Kishor. The plaintiffs case was that Balbhadar's branch of the family was joint in status so as to become entitled to the estate in preference to the widows. The plaintiffs had acquired the property in dispute in this appeal under a sale-deed, dated 30 October 1922.

(3.) On behalf of the defendant the fact that Majhauli estate was an ancient impartible raj and was founded by Bishwa Sen was admitted, and it was also admitted that only one person owned the raj at a time and that the other members of his family cannot get their share by partition. The pedigree get up by the plaintiffs was denied, and it was also not admitted that Balbhaddar's branch had remained joint with the main line. It was further alleged that there was a custom in this family under which a widow was entitled to succeed for her lifetime, but no general tribal custom was put forward. A further custom of non-alienability was also pleaded. The validity of the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiffs was also challenged on the ground of a fraudulent registration on account of the inclusion of an item of property not intended to be sold.