ACHUMBIT LAL Vs. RAJ BAHADOOR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case the Respondent (the Plaintiff) Achumbit Lal brought his suit to recover possession of certain property to which he alleged that he was entitled as joint heir with his brother one Doorga Prosad. The Defendant Raj Bahadoor Singh, to whom was joined the brother of the Plaintiff, claims under Jusoda Chowdrain the widow of Doorga Prosad, and the real question in the cause is whether, under a certain document called a waseeutnaniah, executed by Doorga Prosad on the 24th of May, 1820, the widow's estate was enlarged from the ordinary estate of a Hindu widow to an absolute estate. The main contention in the Court below appears to have been that the document operated in the nature of a will, conferring upon her, or granting to her, an absolute estate; but the main contention before their Lordships has been somewhat different. It has not been seriously argued that the document conferred upon her or granted to her any estate which she had not before, but it is contended that it operates by its recitals as an admission on the part of Doorga Prosad, by which a person claiming under him would be bound, that the widow had in fact a joint interest with Doorga Prosad in the property which is the subject of the waseeutnamah, a part of which is claimed in this suit.

(2.) THE case was heard before the two Courts in India, both of whom found in favour of the Plaintiff. The High Court was composed of Mr. Justice Glover, and a very learned native, Mr. Justice Romeshchunder Mitter, and those learned Judges had the original document before them. They appear to have considered that the translation which is now in the Record was to some extent imperfect, and they gave their decision upon the construction which they put upon the original document. It would have been more satisfactory to their Lordships if they could have had before them the translation of the document on which the High Court relied, and they cannot help thinking that it was incumbent on the Appellant, who desires to satisfy them that the High Court was wrong, to furnish them with that translation, or at all events some information with reference to it. As it is, however, their Lordships must deal with the document which is before them. Undoubtedly it is somewhat ambiguous in many of its expressions, but they think it clear, as has been before observed, that there was no intention on the part of Doorga Prosad to grant any new estate to this lady; and they do not see their way to differ from the construction which was put upon it by the High Court, and which is expressed in these terms in the judgment of Mr. Justice Glover, agreed to by Mr. Justice Mitter: "I take the meaning of Doorga Prosad to be, that feeling old and unable to manage the complicated affairs of a large estate, and knowing that his wife, a purdanashin lady, would likewise be incompetent to the business, he agrees to pay a manager to take all the trouble off their hands, and to do so at once. He speaks of his wife as being joined with him as owner, but these words cannot be taken literally, as throughout the document he speaks of himself as the sole proprietor, and all his arrangements are made with reference to his own comfort and advantage in the first instance. Jusoda Chowdhrain is to get nothing till his death. The warning given to his other heirs refers to the time between his own death and Jusoda's. That the lady herself did not understand the waseeutnamah to be a will giving her the property to dispose of after her death is clear from her own statement" in another suit. Their Lordships, on the whole, are not prepared to disagree with this view, which was taken by the learned Judges of the High Court, and this construction of the document disposes of the main point in the case.

(3.) THEIR Lordships will humbly advise Her Majesty that the judgment of the Court below should be affirmed, and this appeal dismissed with costs.