RAVANESHWAR PRASAD SINGH Vs. CHANDI PRASAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first plaintiff claims an estate called taluk Chakai, originally the property of one Tikait Dharam Narain Singh. He claims to be the great great grandson of Raghubir Singh, the second son of Tikait Dharam Narain Singh. The last male holder of the property was one Tikait Garabh Narain Singh, who died while a minor and who was the great grandson of Jagarnath Singh, the eldest son of Tikait Dharam Narain Singh. A pedigree is attached to the pleadings. It is alleged that the family is governed by the Mitakshara and that the property is impartible. Tikait Fateh Narain, the father of Garabh Narain, died on the 18th April, 1863, leaving three wives. A posthumous son was born in July 1863, Garabh Narain above mentioned. On the latter s death his mother, Tikaitni Durga Kumari, succeeded as his heir and died on the 15th May, 1907. During her life time certain alienations were made in favour of the predecessor of the defendant, the Maharajah of Gidhour. The first plaintiff claims to be entitled to these properties on the ground that Durga Kumari had a limited interest only and that the transfers were not for legal necessity and were not transfers of the estate itself, to which he lays claim on the ground that lineal primogeniture applies to this estate and that he is the eldest representative of the eldest line of Tikait Dharam Narain Singh.

(2.) The first plaintiff associated with himself the second and third plaintiffs, Bhairo Singh and Tirbhuban Singh. These persons are nearer in descent to Dharam Narain Singh; but they are members of junior lines, and the plaint alleges that they have executed deeds of relinquishment, in favour of the first plaintiff, of any right they might claim, though in fact they had no right except to maintenance. The suit commenced on the 6th March, 1908, and on the 24th August, 1908, Tirbhuban asked that his name should be removed from the category of plaintiffs, and he was accordingly made a defendant on the 25th August. On the 18th December, 1908, he applied to be made a plaintiff again. The Court has held that lineal primogeniture applies, that according to this rule the first plaintiff is entitled to the estate, and that the alienations were not made for legal necessity. Decree has, however, been given him conditionally on his paying certain sums, amounting to Rs. 40,000 odd, which the lower Court holds are a charge on the estate. The defendant Maharajah has appealed, and the two questions which we have; to decide are: (1) whether the first plaintiff, Chandi Prasad Singh, is the heir-at-law, and (2), if so, whether the transfers under which the Maharajah claims are binding on the inheritance.

(3.) On the 22nd April, 1863, after Fateh Narain s death and before the birth of his son, his three widows applied to the Collector for the registration of the estate in their names. Before such application and the birth of the son there had been an agreement between the widows that the three should hold the estate.