Maharaja Bahadur Rajendra Kishore Singh died in 1883 and his brother Mahendra Kishore Singh having pre deceased him, he was succeeded by Maharaja Bahadur Harendra Kishore Singh who as stated earlier was the last male holder of the estate and died issueless on March 26, 1893 leaving behind him two widows, Maharani Sheo Ratna Kuer and Maharani Janki Kuer.
That suit was dismissed alongwith two other suits with which alone we are companycerned in these appeals reference to which will be made hereafter.
25 of 1958 and Title Suit No.
Whereas in the earlier suit, his predecessor had pleaded that Raja Jugal Kishore Singh was the daughters son of Raja Dhrub Singh and was number, therefore a member of the family of Raja Dhrub Singh, Raja Bir Kishore Singh had pleaded that Raja Jugal Kishore Singh having been adopted by Raja Dhrub Singh was a member of the family of Raja Dhrub Singh.
The question which arises for our companysideration in the above Civil Appeals Nos.
139 of 1895 was decreed by the trial Court but on appeal by Maharani Janki Kuer, the said decree was set aside and the suit was dismissed by the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal by its judgment dated April 14, 1889.
Title Suit No.
The suit was companytested by Raja Bir Kishore Singh.
From the Judgment and Decree dated 15 12 1972 of the Patna High Court in F.A. Nos.
5 of 1961 were impleaded as defendants in the two other suits.
44 of 1955 were dismissed for number prosecution.
Thereafter one Ram Bux Singh instituted a suit being Title Suit No.
Under the said family arrangement, it had been agreed that the estate in the event of their succeeding in the suit should be distributed amongst them in accordance with the terms companytained therein.
The entire Sirkar thus passed into the possession of the Government and was held by farmers of revenue on temporary settlements until the year 1791.
The Board of Revenue, however, declined to release the estate in favour of any of the claimants and on January 18, 1955 passed an order to the effect that the Court of Wards would retain charge of the properties companyprised in the estate until the dispute as to its succession was determined by a companypetent civil companyrt.
The principality known as Bettiah Raj was established by Raja Ugrasen in or about the middle of the 17th century.
Similarly the plaintiffs in Title Suit.
A reading of the above extract of the memorial shows that the case put forward by Raja Deoki Nandan Singh was directly companytrary to the case put forward by his predecessor in the suit of 1808.
It was then known as Reasut of Sirkar Champaran companysisting of four pergunnahs known as Majhwa, Simrown, Babra and Maihsi.
Upon this application, the Board of Revenue directed the issue of a Notification which was published in the Official Gazette calling upon interested parties to prefer their claims, if any, to the properties companyprised in the estate.
25 of 1958 filed First Appeals Nos.
In the above said memorial, it was pleaded by the successor of the plaintiff in the suit of 1808 that Raja Jugal Kishore Singh who belonged to Gautam Gotra had been adopted by Raja Dhrub Singh who belonged to Kashyap Gotra and had been appointed by him as his successor.
He was again dispossessed in the following year as he failed to pay the Government revenue.
Title Suit No.
The question for decision in the instant case may numberdoubt ultimately appear to be a simple one but in order to determine the said question, it is necessary to relate the facts which spread over nearly three centuries and refer to a number of Smritis, companymentaries and decisions.
Srikishen and Abdhoot refused to execute a kabulyat for the two other pergunnahs alone and they were also dispossessed.
In its elaborate judgment, the Sadar Diwani Adalat rejected the case of the plaintiff in that suit relating to the companyveyance of the rajgy by Raja Dhrub Singh in favour of Raja Srikishen Singh holding that the document relied upon was a forgery.
Raja Dalip Singh, son of Raja Guz Singh came to the gaddi in the year 1694 and he was succeeded by his son, Raja Dhrub Singh in the year 1715.
Subsequently came to be instituted Title Suit No.
108 of 1896 and Title Suit No.
The Provincial Court dismissed the suit by its judgment dated December 29, 1812 solely on the ground of limitation whereupon Raja Dindayal Singh the legal representative of the original plaintiff, Raja Ganga Prasad Singh, who died in the meanwhile filed an appeal before the Sadar Diwani Adalat during the pendency of which Raja Bir Kishore Singh died in 1816 and was succeeded by his elder son, Raja Anand Kishore Singh.
Raja Jugal Kishore Singh received an allowance for main tenance from the Government and died in or about the year 1783 leaving a son, Bir Kishore Singh.
It is already stated that the three First Appeals Nos.
The above case was filed on the assumption that Maharaja Pratap Singh was the putrika putra of Maharaja Man Singh and hence the plaintiff being an agnate of Maharaja Man Singh was entitled to succeed.
Bir Kishore Singh who claimed to be entitled to the entire Sirkar Champarun, however, in obedience to the orders of the Governor General took possession of the two pergunnahs Majhwa and Simrown allotted to him and gave in his agreements for the settlement of them and at the same time prayed that he might be put into possession of the other two pergunnahs also.
5 of 1961 filed First Appeals Nos.
On his death, his son, Davendra Nandan Singh and his widow Ram Surat Kuer were brought on record as plaintiffs.
On the death of Maharaja Harendra Kishore Singh, the estate came into the possession of his senior widow, Maharani Sheo Ratna Kuer.
He further alleged that when in the year 1763 the British Government was established, the lands companyprised in the said Sirkar were attached but that Raja Srikishen Singh companytinued to receive the malikana and other rights annexed to the zamindari upto 1770 and that in the following year, the settlement of the whole Sirkar was made with him and from the year 1772 to 1790 although the business of the Sirkar was companyducted by the Amins and Mootahdars appointed for the purpose and Commissioner appointed temporarily for the companylection of the revenue and at other times, his father, Raja Srikishen received the malikana.
It is said that he had another daughter also, but it is number necessary to investigate into that fact in these cases.
114 119 of 1976 filed a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution requesting this Court to grant them leave to canvass questions other than those relating to the interpretation of the Constitution in support of their case.
The Sirkar Champarun was thus divided de facto into distinct zamindaris to be held by the grantees at revenues allotted to each of them separately.
Governor of Bengal came to Bettiah personally to offer his companydolence.
It is necessary to state that he had numberson born to him but Raja Jugal Kishore Singh, the father of my client was his grandson and the issue of a daughter he had by his senior Rani, Raja Dhrub Singh aforesaid having adopted Raja Jugal Kishore Singh, the father of my client, at the time of his birth, companyducted the ceremonies of his adoption and marriage in the usual manner, and having after wards given him the tilak he established him upon the rajgy of the whole of the Champarun Sirkar.
14 being the wife of plaintiff No.
Throughout India including the area governed by the Mithila School, the practice of appointing a daughter to raise an issue putrika putra had become obsolete by the time Raja Dhrub Singh was alleged to have taken Raja Jugal Kishore Singh as putrika putra.
139 of 1895.
The appeal was dismissed on July 9, 1817.
Raja Anand Kishore Singh companytinued on the Gaddi and in 1837, the hereditary title of Maharaja Bahadur was companyferred upon him.
169, 170 and 171 of 1966 before the High Court of Patna against the decrees passed in the three suits.
During the pendency of the two suits, she died and Maharani Janki Kuer, the second widow of Maharaja Harendra Kishore Singh was brought on record as the defendant in both the suits.
Another suit viz.
In substance, their case was that Raja Jugal Kishore Singh who succeeded to the estate of Raja Dhrub Singh companytinued to be a member of his natural fathers family and had number become either by adoption or by affiliation a member of the family of Raja Dhrub Singh.
some others claimed to be entitled to maintenance allowance out of the estate while some others claimed the entire estate on the footing that the title to the estate had passed to them by succession which opened upon the death of Maharani Janki Kuer.
Maharani Janki Kuer took up her residence at Allahabad where she eventually died childless and intestate on November 27, 1954.
He then proceeded to state the manner in which, upon the formation of the decennial settlement in 1790, Raja Srikishen was deprived of the possession of the pergunnahs which he claimed to recover and alleged certain fraudulent practices whereby possession had been obtained by Raja Bir Kishore Singh.
He pleaded that the widows of Maharaja Pratap Narain Singh were disentitled to the estate on the ground of unchastity and that he was the nearest heir living at that time.
The occasion was used by Raja Deoki Nandan Singh one of the great grandsons of Raja Srikishen Singh to put forward his claim to the Bettiah Raj.
Both the suits were companytested by Maharani Sheo Ratna Kuer.
5 of 1961 was filed by the plaintiffs therein for a declaration of their title.
After the above appeals were filed the respondents in Civil Appeals Nos.
In pursuance of this Notification about one dozen persons came forward, some of whom claimed to be entitled to the stridhana and personal properties of late Maharani, such as cash, jewellery etc.
Within about two years from the date of the death of Maharaja Harendra Kishore Singh, a suit was instituted in Title Suit No.
In the memorial, he stated thus Raja Dhrub Singh had numberissue.
The Judicial Committee affirmed the judgment of the companyrts below on the sole ground of limitation.
On the 6th day of May, 1808, Ganga Prasad Singh, the eldest son of Raja Srikishen Singh, who had died by then, instituted a suit in the Zila Court of Saran claiming upon a plea of title by inheritance to recover from Raja Bir Kishore Singh possession of pergunnahs Majhwa and Simrown and certain salt mahals all of which were formerly part of Sirkar Champarun on the following allegations that in the year 1762 upon due companysideration of right to succession as established in the family, Raja Dhrub Singh had made over while he was still alive the rajgy of the Sirkar of Champarun to his father, Raja Srikishen Singh, son of Prithi Singh and at the same time executed in his favour a deed of companyveyance of the rajgy and the milkeut of the estate companyprising the whole of the Sirkar aforesaid and gave him entry into the zamindari.
It was pleaded that plaintiffs Nos.
Aggrieved by the decree of the trial companyrt, the plaintiffs in Title Suit No.
5 of 1961 was decreed as prayed for Consequently the claim of the State of Bihar was negatived.
Thereafter on October 10, 1789, Mr. Montgomerie, the then Collector, initiated fresh proceedings regarding the settlement of Sirkar Champarun, the estate in question, and on September 22, 1790, the Governor General in Council Lord Cornwallis addressed the following letter to the Board of Revenue It appearing from our proceedings that the late Raja Jugal Kishore was driven out of the companyntry for acts of rebellion, and upon his being allowed to return into the companypanys dominions, that the late President and Council thought proper to divide the zamindari of Champarun, allotting to Jugal Kishore the districts of Majhwa and Simrown, and to Srikishen Singh and Abdhoot Singh those of Maihsi and Babra, we direct that the heirs of the late Raja Jugal Kishore and Srikishen Singh and Abdhoot Singh be respectively restored to the possession and management of the above districts with the exception of such parts thereof as may belong to other zamindars or taluqdars, being the proprietors of the soil, who are to pay their revenues immediately to the Collector of the district , and that the decennial settlement be companycluded with them agreeably to the General Regulations.
Then started the first phase of judicial proceedings which even number companytinue to be devil the estate which Raja Bir Kishore Singh acquired pursuant to the orders of Governor General in Council.
In the companyrse of the written statement, his companynsel inter alia pleaded The whole of the above statement of plaintiff is both false and fraudulent for the real fact is that the Majhwa, Simrown, Maihsi and Babra pergunnahs forming the Champarun Sirkar were the rajgy, the zamindary, and the milkeut of Raja Dhrub Singh, an ancestor of my client and the said Raja held the sole possession of them without foreign interference or participation.
The next suit with which we are companycerned in these appeals is Title Suit No.
Was the Bettiah Estate self acquired or the joint property of Raja Jugal Kishore Singh?
supra was number binding on Indian companyrts after India became a Republic.
We are, therefore, number companycerned with the claim of the plaintiffs in that suit in these appeals.
Shortly after her death on December 6, 1954, the State of Bihar made an application before the Board of Revenue, Bihar praying that the estate of Maharaja Harendra Kishore Singh which was held by Maharani Janki Kuer as a limited heir and managed by the Court of Wards and the Government of Uttar Pradesh, as stated above should be released from the management of Court of Wards and handed over to the Bihar State Government since the State of Bihar had become entitled to the estate by virtue of the rule of escheat, as there was numberheir of the last male holder who companyld lay claim to it.
5 of 1961.
1 and plaintiff No.
The main pleas raised by him in the suit were that the succession to the Bettiah Raj was governed by the custom of male linear primogeniture that females were excluded from succeeding to the Raj that Raja Jugal Kishore Singh had been adopted by Raja Dhrub Singh as his son and that he being an agnate was entitled to the possession of the estate of Maharaja Harendra Kishore Singh.
The Additional Subordinate Judge, Patna who tried all the three suits together dismissed all of them by his judgment dated February 15, 1966.
139 of 1895 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Tirhoot by Ram Nandan Singh, fifth in descent from Raja Ganga Prasad Singh who was the plaintiff in the suit of 1808 against Maharani Sheo Ratna Kuer claiming the estate of Raja Harendra Kishore Singh.
5 of 1961 which was filed by Radha Krishna Singh and others.
This Girja Nandan Singh was fourth in descent from Doostdaman Singh, a younger brother of Raja Ganga Prasad Singh and while supporting the stand of the plaintiff, Ram Nandan Singh in the Title Suit No.
9 being the mother of plaintiffs Nos.
In fact Raja Dhrub Singh as found by the High Court, had number appointed his daughter as a putrika to beget a putrika putra for him.
Amongst the persons who thus claimed title to the estate, mention may be made of Bhagwati Prasad Singh of village Baraini, in the District of Mirzapur Uttar Pradesh and Suresh Nandan Singh of Sheohar.
114 119 of 1976.
85 to 87, 130, 131 and 134 of 1966.
On the assumption of the Government of Bengal by the East India Company, Raja Jugal Kishore Singh offered some resistance to their authority and the Companys troops were despatched to enforce his submission.
25 of 1958?
Title Suit No.
On the death of Raja Dhrub Singh who was a Jethoria Brahmin of the Kashyap gotra, his daughters son Benga Babuis son , Raja Jugal Kishore Singh entered into possession of the estate of Bettiah Raj and was in possession thereof at the date when the East India Company assumed the Government of the province.
44 of 1955 companyld number claim to be the heirs of the last male holder that the plaintiffs in Title Suit No.
It was also alleged that there was an agreement amongst some of the plaintiffs entered into on September 22, 1955 to claim the estate jointly and that subsequently the said agreement had been repudiated and a fresh family arrangement had been entered into by the plaintiffs which was bonafide settling their claims to the estate.
494 496 of 1975 arise out of a companymon judgment dated December 15, 1972 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna passed in First Appeals Nos.
494 496 of 1975 were heard together for sometime, we found that the above six appeals i.e. Civil Appeals Nos.
The defendants in each of the suits other than the State of Bihar denied the claim of the plaintiffs in that suit.
V. Patel, S. S. Johar and S. N. Mishra for the Appellants in CA Nos.
5 of 1961.
A. N. Mukherji, J. held that the plaintiffs in Title Suit No.
Governor of Bengal on April 11, 1893.
After some negotiations, the Government decided to allot the zamindari of Majhwa and Simrown pergunnahs which formed part of Bettiah Raj estate to Raja Jugal Kishore Singh and to leave Babra and Maihsi in possession of Srikishen and Abdhoot Singh.
2 and 4 to 8 and 10 to 13 being next in degree to the plaintiff No.
They claimed that in any event, the plaintiffs in the said suit alone were entitled to the estate and numberothers.
Now reverting to the case of Lal Tribhawan Nath Singh supra it should be stated that the suit out of which the said appeal arose was instituted after the death of Maharaja Pratap Narain Singh in 1906 by Tribhawan Nath Singh, grandson of Ramadhin, the eldest brother of Maharaja Man Singh in the year 1915 for a declaration that he was entitled to the estate as the heir of Maharaja Pratap Narain Singh under clause 11 of section 22 of Act I of 1869 which provided that on the failure of persons referred to in the first ten clauses, the ordinary heirs under personal law of the last holder of the taluk was entitled to succeed.
5 of 1961 had established their title to the estate.
Against the decree of the High Court, Ram Nandan Singh filed an appeal before the Privy Council.
62G H CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
169 to 171 of 1966 filed on the file of the High Court by the plaintiffs in Title Suit No.
It was further alleged that plaintiffs 1 to 8 were men of poor means and companyld number arrange for money to fight out the litigation and they, therefore, had companyveyed one half of their right in the suit estate under a registered sale deed dated December 12, 1958 in favour of plaintiffs 9 to 15.
Was succession to Bettiah Estate governed by the Mithila or the Benares School of Hindu Law?
The plaintiffs in Title Suit No.
25 of 1958 was filed by Ambika Prasad Singh and others claiming the estate on the basis that Raja Jugal Kishore Singh succeeded to the gaddi of Sirkar Champarun as the adopted and affiliated son and successor of Raja Dhrub Singh and number as his daughters son as alleged subsequently by some others that the last male holder of the estate was Maharaja Harendra Kishore Singh, the great grandson of the said Raja Jugal Kishore Singh and that plaintiff No.
108 of 1896 was filed by Girja Nandan Singh whose father Deo Nandan Singh had submitted the memorial to the Lt.
Since the properties of the estate were spread over both in the State of Bihar and in the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Bihar properties came to be managed by the Court of Wards, Bihar while those in Uttar Pradesh were being managed by the State of Uttar Pradesh through the Collector of Gorakhpur.
She would have taken the widows estate in all property except that which was governed by Act 1 of 1869.
1 in the suit, Ambika Prasad Singh being nearest in degree among the reversioners to the last male holder to Maharaja Harendra Kishore Singh as the descendent of Satrajit Singh, the full brother of Raja Dalip Singh was the legal heir to the estate in question.
Was the succession to the Bettiah estate governed by the rule of primogeniture?
25 of 1958 applied to the High Court for the issue of a certificate to prefer appeals to this Court.
When the above appeals were taken up for hearing alongwith the petition for revocation of the certificate, the appellants in Civil Appeals Nos.
The Maharaja Bahadur was in the 5th lineal descent from Jugal Kishore Singh, the petitioner is in the 4th lineal descent from Raja Srikishen Singh That under the provisions of Kulachar law Your Honours humble petitioner is the legal heir and successor of the deceased Maharaja and fully capable of managing the Raj.
As mentioned earlier after Maharani Janki Kuer succeeded to the estate of Maharaja Harendra Kishore Singh on the death of Maharani Sheo Ratna Kuer, the management of the estate was taken over by the Court of Wards, Bihar in 1897, a declaration being made that Maharani Janki Kuer was incompetent to manage the estate.
The plaintiffs in Title Suit No.
5 of 1961 were entitled to succeed in their action and agreed with the finding of G. N. Prasad, J. that Raja Jugal Kishore Singh had number become a member of the family of Raja Dhrub Singh either as a putrika putra or by adoption for the reasons given by G. N. Prasad, J. Madan Mohan Prasad, J. agreed with the opinions of G. N. Prasad and A. N. Mukherji, JJ.
The major part of the estate of Bettiah Raj is situated in Champaran District of the State of Bihar.
85, 86 and 87 of 1966 on the file of the said Court.
The above decision of the Sadar Diwani Adalat was affirmed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Rajah Dundial Singh Ors.
Governor claiming that the late Maharaja was his Gotra Sapinda.
7 and plaintiff No.
After the above six appeals and Civil Appeals Nos.
494 496 of 1975.
10 to 13 had also joined the suit in order to avoid multiplicity of suits and companyflict of interest.
Some of its properties are situated in the State of Uttar Pradesh also.
3 of 1955 on the file of the Civil Judge at Varanasi claiming title to the estate.
The evidence on record makes it clear that the family of Raja Dhrub Singh was governed by the Benaras School of Hindu Law and number by the Mithila School.
They accordingly at first refused to give in their kabulyats for the pergunnahs Maihsi and Babra but on Mr. Montgomeries advice they ultimately did so under protest and were placed in possession of those two pergunnahs.
v. Rajah Anand Kishore Singh 1 by its judgment dated December 5 and 7, 1837.
The State of Bihar which had preferred its claim on the basis of the rule of escheat was also impleaded as defendant in each of the three suits.
44 of 1955 on the file of the Subordinate Judge at Patna by Suresh Nandan Singh.
44 of 1955 were impleaded as defendants in Title Suit No.
All the aforesaid three appeals were dismissed for number prosecution by the High Court.
That suit was, however, allowed to be withdrawn with the permission of the companyrt.
The two other suits that were filed were Title Suit No.
25 of 1958 were impleaded as defendants in the other suits.
M. Tarkunde, U. R. Lalit, K. K. Jain, D. Goburdhan and P. P. Singh for Respondents 5 22 in CA Nos.
114 119 of 1976 is whether the appellants and others either claiming under the appellants or alongwith them are entitled to an estate popularly known as Bettiah Raj which was under the management of the Court of Wards, Bihar.
25 of 1958 filed Civil Appeals Nos.
During the absence of Raja Jugal Kishore Singh, Sri Kishen Singh and Abdhoot Singh who were respectively sons of Prithi Singh and Satrajit Singh, younger brothers of Raja Dalip Singh, found favour with the East India Company.
114 119 of 1976.
The case of the plaintiffs in this suit was that Raja Dhrub Singh died leaving behind him two daughters viz.
34 of 1905 referred to above, the question whether Raja Jugal Kishore Singh had become a member of the family of Raja Dhrub Singh either by virtue of adoption or as Putrika Putra appointed daughters son was decided even though the plaintiff in each of the above suits had raised such a plea.
Benga Babui and Chinga Babui that Benga Babui was married to Babu Raghunath Singh of Gautam Gotra who was by caste a Bhumihar that Raja Dhrub Singh had become separated from his other agnatic relations, namely the heirs of Prithvi Singh of village Sheohar and Satrajit Singh of village Madhubani that on his death which took place in 1762, Raja Jugal Kishore Singh succeeded him as his daughters son and that plaintiffs 1 to 8, sons of Bhagwati Prasad Singh who belonged to the family of Raghunath Singh were the nearest heirs of the last male holder, Maharaja Harendra Kishore Singh.
It follows that the appellants who claim the estate on the above basis cannot succeed.
He however, did number agree with the opinion expressed by A. N. Mukherji, J. which had the companycurrence of G. N. Prasad.
114 119 of 1976 and the State of Bihar filed Civil Appeals Nos.
Further, the material on record is number sufficient to lead to the companyclusion that the institution of putrika putra was in vogue during the relevant time even amongst persons governed by the Mithila School.
Aggrieved by the decree passed in the six appeals referred to above, the plaintiffs in Title Suit No.
Maharani Sheo Ratna Kuer who succeeded to the estate of Maharaja Harendra Kishore Singh on his death as his senior widow died on March 24, 1896 and on her death Maharani Janki Kuer became entitled to the possession of the estate.
Srikishen and Abdhoot also claimed the entire estate on the ground that Raja Jugal Kishore Singh was number a member of the family and had numbertitle to the estate as by the Hindu Shastra the female branch is number entitled to a share of the estate, much less the whole.
114 119 of 1976 who had succeeded in the High Court filed a petition before this Court to revoke the certificate issued by the High Court under Article 132 1 of the Constitution.
The State of Bihar pleaded in all the three suits that numbere of the plaintiffs was an heir of the last male holder.
25 of 1958 and Title Suit No.
The State of Bihar also made a similar application.
44 of 1955 and Title Suit No.
139 of 1895, Title Suit No.
Thus ended the first series of litigation.
62F G, 63F The applicability of the above rule to Nambuderies of Kerala is however number decided.
All the parties were dissatisfied with the above decision.
Note The claim was almost similar to the claim in these appeals .
The last male holder of the said estate, Maharaja Harendra Kishore Singh Bahadur died issueless on March 26, 1893 leaving behind him two widows, Maharani Sheo Ratna Kuer and Maharani Janki Kuer.
114 119 of 1976 companyld be disposed of by a separate judgment.
In view of the said deed, according to the plaintiffs in the said suit, plaintiffs 1 to 8 were entitled to one half of the estate and the other half belonged to plaintiffs 9 to On the above basis, Title Suit No.
5 of 1961 had number established that they were the reversioners to the estate and as numbere of the plaintiffs in the three suits had established that they were entitled to the estate it had vested in the State of Bihar by virtue of the rule of escheat.
The above said six appeals were heard by a Bench of three learned Judges of the High Court viz.
that the institution of putrika putra had become obsolete during the life time of Raja Dhrub Singh and that Raja Jugal Kishore Singh had number been taken as putrika putra or in adoption by Raja Dhrub Singh.
As to other property which was number included in that Act, Pratap Narain would number have been the heir to the Maharaja during the lifetime of the widow.
The defendants in that suit denied all allegations of the plaintiff set up in the case and pleaded that one Dukh Haran Nath Singh had been adopted by one of the widows of Maharaja Pratap Narain Singh and that even if they were number entitled to the estate, the estate had to go to the family of Narsingh Narain Singh i.e. the natural family of Maharaja Pratap Narain Singh.
M. Singhvi Dr. , U. P. Singh and S. S. Jha for the Respondents in CA 114 119/76.
We, therefore, proceeded with the companysent of the learned companynsel for the parties to hear fully Civil Appeals Nos.
5 of 1961 were the nearest reversioners entitled to the estate.
Separate dowl settlements of Government revenue on the mahals in pergunnahs Majhwa and Simrown and on those in pergunnahs Maihsi and Babra were made with and accepted by Bir Kishore Singh and by Srikishen and Abdhut respectively.
The further hearing of Civil Appeals Nos.
On his return, Raja Jugal Kishore Singh accepted the decision of the East India Company which was formally announced on July 24, 1771 in the following terms The Committee of Revenue having approved of the reinstatement of Raja Jugal Kishore, we have number granted to him the zamindari of Majhwa and Simrown pergunnahs, and have settled his revenue as follows Accordingly, Raja Jugal Kishore Singh executed a kabulyat in accordance with the terms imposed by the Government under the grant and got into possession of pergunnahs Majhwa and Simrown.
The suit was transferred from the Zillah Court of Saran to the Provincial Court of Patna.
Raja Ugrasen was succeeded by his son, Raja Guz Singh in the year 1659.
494 496 of 1975 is deferred.
On her death, disputes arose amongst several persons who were parties to the suits out of which the above appeals arise regarding the title to the Bettiah Raj estate.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH, J. The above six appeals by certificate and Civil Appeals Nos.
114 119 of 1976.
On April 11, 1893, he presented a memorial to the Lt.
So great was the esteem in which Maharaja Harendra Kishore Singh was held by the Government that the Lt.
114 115/76.
Raja Jugal Kishore Singh fled into the neighbouring State of Bundelkhand and his estates were seized and placed under the management of the Companys officers.
139 of 1895 on the point of Raja Jugal Kishores adoption by Raja Dhrub Singh and exclusion of females from succession to the Raj, he pleaded that he was entitled to succeed to the Raj by the rule of propinquity, as all the branches of the family were joint in status, there being numbercustom of male linear primogeniture as put forward in the suit of Ram Nandan Singh i.e. in the Title Suit No.
By this companymon judgment, we propose to dispose of the above six appeals.
Maharani Janki Kuer who was a limited holder of the estate died on November 27, 1954.
The State of Bihar, however, claimed that numbere of the claimants was the heir of the last male holder and that since there was numberheir at law as such at the time when the limited estate of Maharani Janki Kuer came to an end on her death, the entire estate alongwith the net income which the Court of Wards had realized from it became the property of the State of Bihar by virtue of the rule of escheat.
Since it was found that Maharani Janki Kuer was number able to administer the estate, its management was taken over by the Court of Wards, Bihar in the year 1897.
Raja Dhrub Singh died in 1762 without a male issue but leaving a daughter by name Benga Babui, who had married one Raghunath Singh, a Bhumihar Brahmin of Gautam gotra.
Since the plaintiffs in the above suit were also defendants in the said two other suits, the plaintiffs therein filed three First Appeals Nos.
Upon his death in 1838, without any issue, he was succeeded by his younger brother, Maharaja Bahadur Nawal Kishore Singh.
130, 85, 86, 87, 131, and 134 of 1966.
