THAKUR NITRPAL SINGH Vs. THAKUR JAI SINGH PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question in this appeal is whether the ancestral property of a Rajpoot family long settled in the Agra district devolves according to ordinary Mitakshara law, or is subject to the custom of primogeniture. The Courts below have differed in opinion upon the evidence: the Subordinate Judge thinking that the custom is established, and the High Court that it is not; so that it becomes the duty of this Board to say whether the evidence is such as to make it right to restore the original decision.

(2.) THE family is one of Rajpoots belonging to a clan, apparently numerous, called Jadon Thakurs. Their estate and place of residence is the talook or riasat of Umargarh. One of the witnesses named Bhairon states that he is the jaga (something apparently corresponding to a bard or herald or genealogist) of this family and of all other Jadon Thakurs; and that he kept books compiled by himself, his father, and his elders, containing pedigrees of those families. He produced the book relating to Umargarh, which professes to shew the heads of the family and some of the younger sons for twenty-seven generations. Some parts of the evidence will be better understood if so much of it as relates to the last six generations is set out here. Rao Anrodh Singh. Maha Singh. Rao Jawahir Singh. Rao Bahadur Singh. Ratan Singh (in Zalimpur). Two others in Narsing's deposition. Rao Moti Singh, ob. 1825. Rao Pirthiraj Singh, Tikam Singh, Sheobaran Singh. ob. 1831. ob. 1867. Budh Singh, Narsingh. Balvrant Singh. ob. 1881. Nitrpal Singh, Jai Singh Pal, Narindhpal Singh, defendant plaintiff defendant, (appellant). (respondent).

(3.) THE Subordinate Judge of Agra decided in favour of the custom, and dismissed the suit. Omitting some minor points, the main grounds of his decision may be stated under the following heads: (a) The pedigree made out by Bhairon, coinciding as it does with a large amount of tradition among the Umargarh family and their kinsfolk the Jadon Thakurs, shews that the family is ancient and noble, and has been in possession of the talook of Umargarh and of various villages appertaining thereto for many generations, (b) The family property has never been the subject of partition, (c) The heads of it ascertained by primogeniture have been installed on the gaddi with public ceremonies, (d) The first claim for partition by a younger son, made in 1831, was resisted and finally defeated in 1845. (e) The property in suit has since been enjoyed by the head of the family as sole owner. (f) The members of the family, with the exception of the actual claimants for partition, have declared their belief in the custom of primogeniture, (g) There is substantial evidence to the same effect among their kinsfolk the Jadon Thakurs. (k) The evidence adduced by the defendant stands unrefuted by any substantial evidence for the plaintiff. Their Lordships will proceed to shew the objections taken by the High Court tb these positions, and to examine the evidence bearing on them.