SITARAM SINGH GUNWANT SINGH Vs. CHITTARANJAN HULAB SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case raises a question under the very ambiguous Inam Rules of Berar. To understand the point, it is necessary to set out a table of relationship: A | _____________________________ | | X = F (died 1917) ______________ (remarried | | | 1923) D E G (daughter (defen (defen- born 1914 dant 1) dant 2) married H) (plaintiff died in course of suit) | _____________________________ | | (plaintiff by substi (plaintiff by substi- tution) tution).

(2.) THE letters have no connexion with the actual names. The claim is for partition of a property, the subject-matter of an inam certificate granted on 21st January 1870 to A. The certificate states that it was granted for maintenance. Under the column headed "tenure and condition attached to the continuance of the grant" are the following observations: Upheld under Inam Rule 5, Section 5, one-fourth assessment being levied on the next and three following successions until full assessment is attained.

(3.) THE question is whether that is the correct conclusion or whether this is a case controlled by inam Rule 5(2) so as to confer an estate hereditable but with succession restricted to a class wherein alienation and adoption are prohibited or restricted. If so it is urged that the subject-matter passes to the nearest heir to A and that line of succession cannot be interrupted by partition which is also struck at by the restriction on alienation. It was also urged that G is not a lineal descendant of A and that if the grant is a maintenance grant all that G, as a member of the family, is entitled to, if she is entitled to anything, is maintenance. On the other hand it is said that this is not controlled by inam Rule 5(2) but by inam Rule 5(5) and the reference in that sub-rule to Sub-rule (2) is an obvious mistake for Sub-rule (3); that here there was, at the time of the certificate, an enfranchisement within Rule 5(3) alternatively under Rule 14 and that accordingly the restrictions on succession and alienation are gone and accordingly this estate can be divided up amongst the various "heirs" of A according to their shares; that the B branch take a half and the C branch a half and, therefore, G (and now 1 and M) was entitled to a half and D and B are entitled to a half, that is one-fourth each.