SAHDEO NARAIN DEO Vs. KUSUM KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question to be decided in this case is whether the succession to an impartible estate, called the Lachmipur Raj, devolved upon the adopted son of the last owner, or upon his nearest collateral blood relation. The action was brought by two half-brothers, claiming in the alternative that one or other was entitled to succeed according to the rule of primogeniture established for this property (with a third plaintiff, the assignee, for value of part of their claims), to recover possession from the defendant, who alleged that he was the adopted son of the last bolder. Various points were raised as to the fact and regularity of the adoption, but these were disposed of in the course of the case in favour of the defendant. The plaintiffs main case, however, was that there was a "family or clan custom which forbids and bars inheritance by adoption," or, as counsel for the plaintiffs has invited their Lordships to look at the matter, that the succession to this estate is not regulated in any sense by Hindu law, but wholly by custom, which custom has no place in it for adoption, or, alternately, for the succession of an adopted son.

(2.) The Lachmipur Raj is situated in N.W. Bengal in the district of Bhagalpur, part of it extending into the Sonthal Perganas. A point was raised in the case that by reason of Regulation III of 1872, relating to these Parganas, the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Bhagalpur had no jurisdiction to try it, even though the plaintiffs abandoned that part of their claim which related to the portion in the Sonthal Parganas.

(3.) This view was taken in the High Court, and if it be correct, is at once fatal to the case of the plaintiffs. It seemed, however, to their Lordships not so plain, on first impression, that this decision was correct, and counsel for the respondent desiring to have the matter tried upon the merits, their Lordships have heard the argument upon the merits without further discussion of the preliminary question of jurisdiction, and as upon the merits they have come to a conclusion, in accordance with that of both Courts below, that the plaintiffs have failed to make out their case, they do not deem it necessary to enquire further into the question of jurisdiction.