BEJAI BAHADUR SINGH; BEJAI BAHADUR SINGH Vs. BHUPINDAR BAHADUR SINGH; KOUNSAL KISHORE PARSHAD MAL BAHADUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant in this case brought a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Mirzapur against the Respondents and others to recover possession of a Raj and large estates, the greater part of which are situate in Pargana Bejaigarh Zillah, Mirzapur. The suit was tried by the District Judge, who decided it in the Appellant's favour, and gave him a decree for possession of the property claimed---except six mauzas---against the Respondents. They separately appealed to the High Court at Allahabad, which Court, on the 19th of July, 1889, reversed the decree of the District Judge and dismissed the suit. The Appellant's case is that Rajah Ram Saran Sahai, who was possessed of the property, was the lineal descendant of Rajah Harhar, or Harihar, Sahai, the son of Rajah Daljit Singh, who died between 1781 and 1790; that Rajah Ram Saran Sahai, who died on the 8th of December, 1853, left a widow, Rani Pirthiraj Kuar, and a daughter, Radhopershad Kuar; that the Appellant is the eldest of the three sons of Babu Lachhman Saran Singh, the lineal descendant of Babu Sheo Baksh Singh, the younger son of Rajah Daljit Sahai; and that Rani Pirthiraj Kuar died on the 19th of April, 1886. The Appellant filed his plaint on the 23rd of September, 1886. The Respondents, who were in possession appear to have obtained it in the following manner. Rani Pirthiraj Kuar having taken possession of the property after the death of her husband, on the 28th of April, 1857, made deeds of gift of parts of it in favour of her daughter, Radhepershad Kuar. She died on the 13th of April, 1859, and her husband, Babu Brijendar Bahadur was, with the consent of Rani Pirthiraj Kuar, recorded as zemindar and proprietor of the property, which was the subject of the deed of gift of the j 28th of April, 1857. On the 15th of January, 1872, Rani Pirthiraj Kuar executed a deed of gift of the whole of her property, with the exception of Taluka Silhat, in favour of Babu Brijendar Bahadur. He died on the 4th of August, 1879, leaving no issue, and the name of Mussummat Dharamraj, his widow, was recorded in the revenue papers. On the 21st of November, 1879, she, and Rani Pirthiraj Kuar, by a deed of gift and agreement, gave and assigned to the first Respondent, the nephew of Brijendar, all their interests in the estates belonging to the Raj of Bejaigarh, and he was put into possession and recorded as proprietor of them with the assent of Rani Pirthiraj Kuar.

(2.) IN his written statement the first Respondent denied that the Appellant belonged to the family of Rajah Ram Saran Singh. He also alleged that Lachhman Singh had been convicted of offences under Act XXV. of 1857 (a mistake for Act XI. of 1857), that his whole property and rights were forfeited to the Government, and therefore that the Appellant had no right to sue. He also relied upon the law of limitation. The defence of the second Respondent was in substance the same.

(3.) THIS is the official translation of the document. The District Judge in his judgment has given his own translation, in which, instead of "were the door-keepers of the petitioner's ancestors," it is "used to live at the threshold of petitioner's ancestors." The latter translation seems rather to shew that "door-keeper" should not be taken to mean merely a servant. This proceeding appears to their Lordships to be important evidence. There is a clear statement by Lachhman of the pedigree now relied upon when there was no question as to the succession to the Raj. The reply of the Rajah is not such as might be expected if Barb Singh and Dhurab Singh were not relations, but were only servants. The denial of the Appellant's ancestor being a brother of Rajah Harihar Sahai is argumentative rather than direct. There was no occasion to produce a grant to prove it, or to have asserted the claim before in Court. The Order of the Settlement Officer is not material to the present question. It was that the Petitioner's ancestors held the villages revenue-free.