COLLECTOR OF FARRUKHABAD Vs. GAJRAJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are dealing in this case with the affairs of a family of Panwar Thakurs who, according to a tradition embodied in the Settlement Records, trace back their descent to one Rao Sheopal Singh, who cams into the Farrukhabad district from the Deccan something over six hundred years ago. His family acquired considerable landed property in Farrukhabad and across the Oudh border in Hardoi. It broke up into several branches, but the evidence shows that the village of Wazirpur in the Farrukhabad district was looked upon, as the head quarters of the family. The branch with which we are immediately concerned had its head- quarters at Allahganj in the same district, and the group of villages owned by them was kaown as "taluqa Allahganj". There are other indications in the evidence besides the use of this name that the status of the family at one time approximated more or less to that of an Oudh taluqadari estate. At the time of the Mutiny, the owners of "taluqa Allahganj" were three brothers, Lekha Singh, Hemanchal Singh and Dammar Singh. The first named was the eldest, and he had one son, named Gopal Singh, the other two died childless. The family was deeply involved in the Mutiny and was severely dealt with by the Government in 1859. When this day of reckoning came, it is clear that the three brothers, whatever may have been the actual state of things before 1857, found it convenient to represent themselves as entirely separate in estate, and as each owning one-third share of the villages forming the taluqz. This position was accepted by Government, and was to the advantage of the family because Government had nothing against Hemanchal Singh personally. He was accordingly left in undisturbed possession of one-third of the family estate; Dammar Singh s property was confiscated, but it appears that either the whole or a considerable portion of it was shortly afterwards restored to his widow, Musammat Dular Kuar. Lekha Singh had been deeply concerned in the doings of the mutinous sepoys; he was transported for life and all his property confiscated. It is clear that no reservation was made in favour of Gopal Singh and that the whole of Lakha Singh s one-third share in the estate was lost to the family; Gopal Singh had in fact been arrested along with his father, and it would seem, that he only escaped transportation on the ground of his youth. Hemanchal Singh was left as the virtual head of the family; being childless himself, it would seem that he felt himself bound to do something for his- elder brother s family. He probably felt that any disposition of his property in favour of Gopal Singh might lead to trouble but Gopal Singh had two minor sons, Kunwar Bahadur Singh and Lal Bahadur Singh. The former of these, the elder brother, was virtually adopted by Hemanchal Singh who finally placed matters beyond dispute by executing, on November 10th, 1875, a formal transfer of his entire property by way of gift (vide paper No. 69 at page 44 R.) in favour of the said Kunwar Bahadur, then still a minor. The next point to be noticed in the history of the family relates to the years 1878-9. Musammat Dular Kuar, widow of Dammar Singh must have got into difficulties, and on January 20th, 1879, we find her one- third share in the two villages, Allahganj and Islamganj, put up to auction sale and purchased (nominally at any rate) by Gopal Singh. (Vide papers No. 155 at 64R and No. 74 at 3A. of the printed books). In the year 1888, Kunwar Bahadur Singh died without male issue, leaving a young widow, (aged about 22 years, according to a paper No. 152 at 67R) Musammat Phul Kuar, who is the real defendant in the present suit. A dispute immediately broke out between this lady and her late husband s brother, Lal Bahadur Singh. The latter seems to have taken possession of as much of his late brother s property as he could get hold of, and Phul Kanwar brought a Civil Suit (No. 76 of 1889 sea p. 67 R) for recovery of the same. The suit ended in a compromise decree dated March 28th, 1891, see papers Nos. 71 and 72 at pp. 48 and 491. which gave Phul Kunwar possession of the entire property in dispute for her life-time as a Hindu widow, with a proviso that Lal, Bahadur Singh should succeed to the same after her death. With this proviso, we are not concerned, as Lal Bahadur Singh himself died childless in the year 1898, leaving him surviving a widow Musammat Tilok Kunwar. The details of this litigation require, however, to be attentively examined with reference to the disposition of the family property in" the two villages of Allahganj and Islamganj. We have to see what Phul Kuar claimed in these two villages as having formed part of her late husband s estate, and what by implication she left to Lal Bahadur Singh as admittedly his property. The conclusions we arrived at, after examining the documentary evidence, were finally accepted by both parties before us as clear beyond dispute; it is, therefore, sufficient simply to state them.

(2.) In village Allahganj, Phul Kuar claimed five sixths of the entire village; and this five-sixths must have been made up as follows: One-third share originally Hemanchal Singh s which passed from him to Kunwar Bahadur; One-third share originally Lekha Singh s, which is proved to have been bought back by Hemanchal Singh after the confiscation, and so passed from him to Kunwar Bahadur;

(3.) One sixth share, representing one-half of Dammar Singh s original one-third share, purchased at auction by Gopal Singh, in 1879, and treated at his death as having been equally divided between his two sons, Kunwar Bahadur Singh and Lal Bahadur Singh.