TIKAIT RUP RAJ RAI Vs. TIKAIT PERMANAND RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This litigation was hopeless from the start and the fact ought to have been recognized long ago.

(2.) The appeal is preferred from the dismissal of a suit for partition of the Ulatu jagir in the Ranchi Thana of the same District. It was instituted by Rupraj Rai, the younger brother of the Tikait of Ulatu whose defence was that under the local custom of primogeniture the tenancy devolved upon the defendant.

(3.) The jagir consists of Ulatu and Sidraul. The suit was seemingly based upon the entry in the khewat of both villages where the holder of the tenure is shown as Tikait Parmanand Rai and Rup (or Rupraj), sons of Tikait Bagh Rai, bahissa barabar. There is, however, a further entry (wrongly translated) in the khewat of Sidraul Rupraj Rai jab farq hoga khorposh paega, the import of which manifestly is that the custom of the tenancy is the usual one in Ranchi of primogeniture with khorposh to the younger brother or brothers. It is also significant that the record accords the title of Tikait to the elder brother only, Oral evidence was adduced of certain collaterals of the family to the effect that Dandu Rai, brother of the grandfather of, the parties, received a share in the jagir. This evidence has been disbelieved by the Court below and in our opinion has beyond question been rightly disbelieved. It is entirely in jonsistent with the numerous entries in the khewat of Ulata which show that all the tenancies of members of the family except the jagir set; out in khewat No. 2 are khorposh under the jagir and with the fact that only the holder of khewat No. 2 pays rent to the proprietor, the Maharaja of Chota Nagpur. In short it is ludicrously false and the testimony in this regard of the defendant-respondent is the truth. The quotations from the various authorities which have been cited by the learned Subordinate Judge and to which may be added the Ranchi District Gazetteer which is to the like intent, also leaves no room for question that the lex loci in the Ranchi District is one of primogeniture not only in the family and offshoots of the Maharaja of Chota Nagpur himself but also in all the jagirs of the District. They are putraputradhi even the appellant is constrained to admit that the tenure in suit is so. In the Chota Nagpur estate it is beyond all question that a putraputradhi tenancy (is impartible, is governed by the rule of lineal primogeniture and continues so long as there exists any lineal male descendants of the grantee or grantees, with khorposh to the widow of the last surviving male holder. 3. As to the entry in the record of rights, it was made when the estate was under the Court of Wards in the minority of the Tikait. That it is faulty is manifest from the fact that it was the estate of the respondent and not that of both brothers that was under the Court of Wards and that the estate was released to the respondent while the plaintiff was still a minor, as would not have been the case if the estate had been that of both the brothers. It may be conjectured that the officer who prepared the khewat of Mama Ulatu, if indeed he gave any thought to the matter, had some idea that until their was separation between the brothers the younger also had some latent ownership of the jagir. The entry of equal ownership seems to have been made inadvertently, the correct entry being made in Sidraul that on becoming separate the right of the younger brother is to receive khorposh. Taking advantage of the incorrect entry, the plaintiff appellant apparently at the instigation of his mother and with the help of some of the discontented khorposhdars of the family, ill-advisedly started the present untenable litigation. The plaintiff appellant has no valid claim to anything more than khorposh bearing some relation to the extent of the jagir. Even his mother admits that it is the eldest son only who is the Tikait and that the others are Kuar and Lais as is the invariable custom in a putraputradhi jagir of the Ranchi District. A khorposh grant of land was actually given to the plaintiff but he was discontented with the amount which, as his mother stated in her evidence is not considered sufficient. The real object of the suit seems to have been to extract a larger khorposh grant. The plaintiff has no right what soever to a share in the jagir and his suit for partition, entirely fails, the property not being governed by the ordinary Mitakshara Law.