SITA RAM KESHO Vs. MAHANT GOVIND RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question raised in these appeals arises out of transactions following on the merger of the Native State of Jalaun into the dominion of the East India Company. The earlier history of the case, which goes back so far as the year 1840, is stated both succinctly and lucidly by the learned Chief Justice of Allahabad, and their Lordships need not restate it except in bare outline until they come to the documents on which the Courts have differed. There has been very little dispute as to matters of fact; and now, as the appeal to the High Court was a second appeal, the facts found by the Commissioner of Jhansi, the First Appellate Court, are conclusively found; but the three Courts below have taken different views as to the proper treatment of the case upon those facts.

(2.) THE property in dispute is the riasat or estate of Gursarai, consisting of sixty villages and some other particulars. It was part of Jalaun, one of the subordinate Mahratta States or chieftainships within the large territory of Bundelkhand, the sovereignty of which passed to the company by treaties with the Peishwa. The chieftainship was continued to the existing chief, called the Rao, and to his family, which became extinct in the year 1840. The estate of Gursarai was managed for the chief by Dinkar Rao, the head of a noble family, till his death in 1831. He had two sons, Balkrishen and Kesho. Balkrishen, having ho issue, adopted his nephew Atma, one of Kesho's sons; and he died about the time of the change of dominion. When the company's officers came to make the requisite arrangements they found Kesho in occupation of the estate.

(3.) THE earliest official document in the record which relates to Gursarai is a letter dated October 8, 1852, from the Government of India to the Bundelkhand Agent. The material passage is as follows: Case No. 1, Book 7. - Family arrangements of this description, his Lordship in Council observes, particularly where no deeds are executed, are in general open to revision on the death of incumbents. The present incumbent has done good service, and his rights should not be touched during his lifetime, but on his death, his Lordship in Council desires the case should be reported for orders.