SM RANI BRIJRAJ KUMARI Vs. MANRANJAN PRASAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Miscellaneous Appeal No. 98 is directed against an order of the Subordinate Judge in miscellaneous case No. 7 arising out of execution case No. 207 started by one Manranjan Prasad Singh. Manrajan is said to have advanced Rs. 12,000 to the Raja, that is to say, the proprietor of Deo estate who was the husband of the appellant. The Raja died on 18-4-1934 leaving two widows, the senior being Rani Bishwanath Kumari and the junior Rani Brijraj Kumari the present appellant. After the death of the Raja, both the Ranis advanced rival claims of succession to the estate, the senior Rani claiming that the succession to this estate was governed by the rule of primogeniture and she alone was to succeed to the exclusion of the junior Rani; while Brijraj Kumari, the junior Rani, contended that there was no custom of primogeniture applying to this estate and, therefore, both of them were entitled to succeed. They fought their battle in the revenue Courts in the land registration proceedings in which both the Deputy Collector and the Collector had recorded both the Ranis as proprietress of the estate; but on 11-1-1987 the Board of Revenue came to the conclusion that the estate was governed by the rule of primogeniture in regard to the question of succession and, therefore, the senior Rani alone was entitled to possession and hence to be recorded.

(2.) Manranjan Prasad Singh, the respondent in this appeal started a suit on the handnote executed by the Raja for a loan of Rs. 12,000 as already stated, impleading both the Ranis as defendants. In the plaint the Ranis were described as the widows of Raja Jagarnath Prasad Singh malik of the estate of Deo Raj and in para. 2 of the plaint it was distinctly stated: "Accordingly the defendants as heirs and occupants of Rajreyasat Deo are bound to pay the aforesaid debts." The prayer was in the following terms: A decree may be passed for Rs. 16,320 besides interest pendente lite and future till the date of realization in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants as heirs and occupants of Rajreyasat Deo.

(3.) The suit remained pending for some time. Then a petition of compromise was filed as between the plaintiff and the senior Rani in which) in para. 2 it was stated that All the properties left by Raja Jagarnath Prasad Singh are in the occupation and possession of defendant 1 and she is the legal heir and representative of Raja Jagarnath Prasad Singh and she is bound to pay the debt of the said Raja and her own debts. Accordingly by the decision passed by the Board of Revenue on 11-1-1937 defendant 1 has been declared the heiress and occupant of the properties left by the Raja Sahib Raja Jagarnath Prasad Singh aforesaid. Hence, defendant 2 may be removed from the category of defendants and the decree may be passed in favour of the plaintiff against defendant 1 alone.