MASAMMAT DILRAJ KUARI Vs. RIKHESWAR RAM DUBE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the defendant in an action in which the plaintiffs succeeded in the trial Court in establishing their right as the nearest heirs of the last male holder of the Loro Estate, who according to the plaintiffs was one Ram Sundar. The case of defendant No. 1, who was the only contesting defendant, was that Ram Sundar was insane and died in that condition and that in the events which happened the estate never vested in him but is Janardan, Ram Sundar's step-brother, who pre-deceased Ram Sunder, leaving his widow Saraswati and mother Musammat Dilraj Kuari as his heirs. The common ancestor was one Chasiram who had two sons Motiram and Ratiram. Motiram was the great great grandfather of Rim Sundar and Janardan. Ram Sunder was the son of Raghunath by his first wife Deoki Kuar, and Janardan, the son of Raghunath by his second wife Dilraj Kuar. Defendant No, 3 in the action is the Manager of the Court of Wards who has been the manager of the estate for many-years, indeed since the time that Raghunath the father became insane. The plaintiffs are the great great grandsons of Ratiram who was the second son, as I have slated, of the common ancestor Chasiram.

(2.) The questions that were argued in this Court were, first that under the Hindu Law Ram Sunder being born insane acquired no interest in the estate by birth. Alternatively, becoming insane he lost all interest in the family estate. A third case on the point of insanity was that Ram Sundar although not insane at the time of the death of his father, became insane before the death of Janardan, his step- brother. But whether he was insane at the death of his father or at the death of Janardan, in my judgment, makes no difference to the question of law to be decided. There was a further alternative case that Ram Sundar had separated from his father and had no interest in the estate, but this is not supported by any evidence.

(3.) The appellant relied on a letter from the Deputy Commissioner of Ranchi (in 1929), in which it was stated, that this contention of having separated was put forward at the time. This is clearly no evidence against the plaintiffs. The khewat of Mauza Loro recorded the Manager of the Court of Wards in possession on behalf of Raghunath Ram Dube and of Ram Sundar. First the khewat cannot be treated as evidence of the status of the parties mentioned, and secondly, as it is not the contention of any of the parties that the Court of Wards was in possession of more than one estate, the mere mention of the estate being in possession for two persons, certainly does not support the allegation of the appellant that Ram Sundar and his father were separate. It is disputed that Ram Sundar was messing separately from his father for reasons which do not appear and therefore the evidence of Dilraj Kuar that Ram Sundar lived separate from her adds nothing to 1 he defendant's case on this point. The decision of the Subordinate Judge on this question seems to roe to be unassailable.