MAHARAJA SRIS CHANDRA NANDY Vs. RAKHALANANDA THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal who affirmed a decree of the Additional District Judge, 24 Parganas, in favour of the plaintiffs, the present respondents. The plaintiffs are a distinguished family of Brahmin priests, Thakurs of Srikhanda: and their claim is for a declaration that they are entitled to a charge on the Kasimbazar Raj Estate represented by the defendants for an annual britti of Rs. 4000 payable by half-yearly instalments and for a money decree for arrears amounting to Rs. 13,260. The defences to the suit are in substance that the plaintiffs never had a legal right to the britti, and that in any event it was not charged upon the estate. These issues were raised in the proceedings and have been decided in favour of the plaintiffs in both Courts. The history of the claim begins with the founder of the Raj fortunes, one Krishna Kanta Nandy. He appears to have been a Hindu of comparatively humble origin who by his abilities attracted the attention of Warren Hastings, became his Diwan, and died in the year 1778, proprietor of large possessions in about twelve different districts and in Calcutta. After his death, his son Loknath appears to have been given the title of Maharajah of Kasimbazar by Warren Hastings, and the property to which he and his descendants have succeeded is known as the Kasimbazar Raj Estate. The case of the plaintiffs is that Krishna Kanta Nandy established two deities Radhagovinda and Lakshminarayan at Shrikhanda, the plaintiffs' home, and granted the plaintiffs a britti of Rs. 4000 for the worship of the two deities: and at the same time charged his Raj estate with the payment of the britti. The plaintiffs and their successors, it is said, became the gurus of Krishna Kanta Nandy and his family and its successors: they have conducted the worship and service of the deities ever since.

(2.) The learned Assistant District Judge found that the plaintiffs had established the whole of their case. A permanent grant of britti was made by Krishna Kanta Nandy who had established at the home of the plaintiffs the two deities and provided the britti for securing their service and worship. To secure the permanent payment he had charged it upon the estate. The learned established the deities, but they concurred in the finding that he had made a permanent grant, and had charged it upon the Kasimbazar estate. Their Lordships are of opinion that no evidence was given sufficient to support these findings. As they will point out later, both Courts erred in admitting as valid evidence of tradition given by and on behalf of the plaintiffs: and when the admissible evidence is considered there is none to justify the finding of a permanent grant or of a charge. The evidence establishes the following facts: that from the time of Krishna Kanta Nandy the sum of Rs. 4000 has been paid annually to the plaintiffs and their successors as britti: that they have continuously conducted the worship and service of the two deities: and that until about the year 1897 such worship was conducted on behalf of the holder of the Raj and that the plaintiffs were the gurus of his family. The succession of the Raj family is relevant. Krishna died in 1778 and was succeeded by his son Loknath who first received the title of Maharajah. There is nothing to indicate that this is an impartible estate. Indeed, what little evidence there is on the point indicates the contrary, but in fact there only appears to have been one person at a time entitled in the line of descent. Loknath was succeeded by Harinath who died in 1832, who was succeeded in turn by his son Krishnanath, who died in 1844 without issue. His widow Rani Swarnamayi succeeded to the estate and possessed it for over 50 years until her death in 1897.

(3.) On her death the estate reverted to Krishnanath's mother Rani Hari Sundari. She, who must have been a very old lady at the time, in the same year, transferred her interest to the next successor Manindra Chandra Nandy, the son of her daughter Gobinda. The estate thus passed out of the direct male succession. Manindra had for his gurus another family the Thakurs of Jogeswardi, and had family deities other than Radhagovinda and Lakshminarayan. In 1923 Manindra Chandra Nandi executed a trust deed in favour of the firm of Ogilvy Gillanders and Co., and certain named trustees with the object that the firm should raise a loan for the Maharajah of ?675,000 and pay off certain scheduled incumbrances and unsecured liabilities. The bulk of the Raj estate was assigned to the trustees by way of mortgage or trust to keep down the necessary charges, and create certain reserve funds including a sum of three lacs which the Maharajah estimated would be sufficient for his personal household expenses. The Maharajah covenanted inter alia that the property was free from all incumbrances other than those mentioned in sch. 4 to the deed which did not include the charge now alleged to exist. In February 1929 on the application of the Maharajah Manindra the estate was taken under the management of the Court of Wards by whom it is now managed subject to the provisions of the deed of trust of 1923. In 1929 the Maharajah Manindra died and was succeeded by the present Maharajah Sris Chandra Nandy. On 10 April 1929 the plaintiffs presented a petition to the General Manager of the Kasimbazar Raj Ward's Estate alleging that they had been receiving for generations from the estate an annual annuity allowance of Rs. 4000, that they had been spending the said allowance as well as their own income towards the worship of several deities and other acts of piety: and asking for the payment of one year's arrears. It may be noticed that in this letter there is no suggestion of the establishment by Krishna Kanta Nandy of the two specified deities, or of a permanent grant by him, or of the creation of any charge. This request was refused by the Manager of the Court of Wards and on 28 June 1929, the Maharajah Manindra wrote to him having been told by the plaintiffs of the refusal. Kasimbazar Rajbari, The 28 June 1929. My dear Mr. Burrows, I have read your letter No. 575ES/16-108 dated the 4 May 1929 (a copy of which was forwarded to me) as also another letter No. 1565E3 dated the 15 June 1929 (shown to me) sent in reply to the letters of Srijut Rakhalananda Thakur of Shrikhanda. The annual Britti payable to our spiritual guides, the Thakurs of Shrikhanda amounting to Rs. 4000 (Four thousand) has been paid by the Raj family of Kasimbazar from generation to generation, and I have been paying it all along during my management. During Mr. Lyall's administration as he did not like to meddle with Religious and Spiritual matters, he left the matter with me of course leaving sufficient fund in my hands. It is not of the nature of personal charity but has always been regarded as a charge upon the estate. I have nothing to say regarding your decision. You may hold it or alter it if there be good reason for doing so, but this Britti in my opinion, is legally enforceable against the Kasimbazar Raj Estate. In this connexion I would like to refer you to my letter No. 1/XII-4/3-G dated the 19 April 1929 in which I mentioned the recurring permanent grants which in addition to other commitments I am bound to make viz., 1. To spiritual guides of Shrikhanda and Jageswardihi, 2. Debkarjya and Debsheba andc. and to my letter to the Secretary, Board of Revenue dated the 2 February, 1929 with statements therewith attached, a careful perusal of which will clearly convince you that the above demand is a charge really upon Kasimbazar Raj Estate and incidentally upon me as proprietor of the Estate and not in my personal capacity. The following is an extract of the relevant portion of my letter to Mr. Fawcus, Secretary, Board of Revenue dated the 2 February, 1929 for your easy reference. "I should like to state however in this connexion that whereas I have these additional sources of income which are not covered by the trust deed I have at the same time additional demands on me for Debkarjya, Brittis for spiritual-guides and Brahmin Pundits and the maintenance of educational institutions which have been recognised by the family from generations past." I shall be glad if you will consider all the facts relating to this matter and recommend to the Court for acceptance of the charge of paying Rs. 4000 annually to the Thakurs of Shrikhanda which is in reality a charge on the Kasimbazar Raj Estate. Yours sincerely, Manindra Chandra Nandy. L.B. Burrows, Esqr., B.A., Manager, Kasimbazar Raj Wards' Estate, 2/1, Russell Street, Calcutta. So far from regarding this letter as proof of a legal charge, their Lordships are of opinion that it tends to negative such a claim. The Maharajah is obviously seeking to limit his personal liabilities: and is treating the continual payment of this britti as an instance of the additional demands on me for Debkarjya and britti for spiritual guides and Brahmin Pundits and the maintenance of educational institutions which have been recognised by the family from generations past. It seems obvious that the continuous recognition is to him another way of saying it has always been regarded as a charge upon the estate. It would not be suggested that the other "additional demands" in ' which this claim is included involved legal charges upon the property. It seems obvious the letter of the Maharajah, written in the circumstances set out in the letter, could not possibly outweigh the express covenant in the deed of 1923 that there were no incumbrances other than those scheduled. In the result therefore there is no evidence at all of the establishment of the deities by Krishna, of any permanent grant by him of the britti, or of the creation of any charge upon any property. It is very significant that though the plaintiffs appear to have very complete records of their transactions from early times no document is produced making or evidencing the grant or charge : and this alone is sufficient to cast doubt upon the claim.