RY SIVAJI RAJA SAHIB Vs. RYVAISWARIYANANDAJI SAHIB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The late Maharaja Sivaji of Tanjore died in 1855. The dispute in the present case relates to the properties which were endowed to certain temples by the late Rajah and to certain private properties belonging to the estate of the late Rani. The senior Rani, Kamakshi Boyi, succeeded to what is known as the Palace Estate as well as the temple properties. The defendants in this case claimed to be the sons of the adopted son of Rajah Sivaji. The plaintiffs allege that they are sons of the deceased Maharajah "by ladies known as his sword wives." The last of the Ranis, Muthu Sri Teejamba Boyi Saheba, died on the 3rd May 1912. The case for the plaintiffs is that they entitled to succeed to the management of the devasthanams and to enjoy the private properties in preference to the defendants, the validity of whose father s adoption they deny. The plaintiffs applied to the Subordinate Judge for the appointment of a Receiver pending the disposal of the suit. He granted their prayer. The defendants have preferred this appeal.

(2.) A large number of charges alleging mismanagement, malversation, waste, etc., were preferred against the defendants. Apparently before the Subordinate Judge only six of these charges were pressed for decision. He found four of them proved, and on the strength of this finding, made the order for the appointment of a Receiver.

(3.) Before dealing with the charges seriatim, it is necessary to mention that immediately on the death of the last Rani, disputes regarding the possession of the properties arose between the plaintiffs on one hand and the defendants on the other. On the 13th of August 1912 the Sub-Divisional Magistrate held that the possession of the defendants should be "maintained", and directed the plaintiffs to establish their claim in a civil suit. This present suit was instituted as a result of that adjudication by the Magistrate. The Subordinate Judge criticises at considerable length the conclusion of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate regarding possession. Although it is open to a Civil Court to come to a different conclusion from the Magistrate on materials placed before it, the Judge has no right to sit in judgment over the findings of fact the Magistrate has arrived at, by a review of the evidence produced in the Magisterial proceedings. The Subordinate Judge is not hearing, an appeal from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The conclusion of the Magistrate, five months after the death of the late Rani, was that defendants had been in possession of the properties and that they should be maintained in that possession. He found against the plaintiffs contention that they were peacefully in possession.