At this stage, defendant No.
495/1949 on the file of the High Court of Madras for partition of the joint family properties.
He also found that whatever was an integral part of the impartible zamindari of Vizianagram before the numberified date within the meaning of the Act, including lands and buildings which had been incorporated with the zamindari, would be governed by the provisions of the Act the apportionment of lands would be governed by ss.
2 on the one hand and their uncle, defendant No.
On December 14, 1912, the Maharani of Rewa died, but before her death, she had executed a will bequeathing all her properties to Chitti Babu for life and the remainder in equal shares to Alak Narayana and his younger brother Vijayananda Gajapathi Raj.
During Chitti Babus life time the Impartible Estate Acts passed by the Madras Legislature in 1902, 1903 and 1904 came into force.
The question as to whether any of the subsequently acquired properties had been incorporated in the estate was then tried by him as a question of fact and in doing so, he placed the onus to prove incorporation on the plaintiff.
In regard to the claim made by defendant No.
4 also actively joined the dispute by filing an application No.
In support of their respective companytentions, the parties were companytent to rely mainly on documentary evidence except for defendant No.
He found that when the estate became impartible under Act II of 1904, the provisions of the Act took within their purview all accretions to the estate made prior to 1897 which had been incorporated into the estate.
1 Necklace of emeralds and diamonds 2 diamond and gold bangles used by me which I wish to be preserved along with state jewels.
At his death he left behind him his only son Ananda Gajapathi Raj and his daughter Appala Kondayamba I. Appala Kondayamba I subsequently became the Maharani of Rewa.
On his death, Alak Narayana succeeded to the estate.
The High Court, however, differed from the trial Court in respect of three Bungalows, Admirality House, Waltair House and Elk House, and it came to the companyclusion that the plaintiff had failed to prove that these properties had been incorporated.
Chitti Babu died on September 11, 1922.
As regards the state jewellery in my possession such as Sarpesh Nakshatra Joth, Jayamala, Emeralds Bhjuaband, Diamond Bhjuaband and emerald and pearl necklace in the central pendant on which is inscribed the name of my mother in several languages, it is part and parcel of the Samsthanam and impartible and inalienable property.
3, made a claim before the Court of Wards for his half share in all the properties of Chitti Babu, except the impartible estate.
2 similarly set up a claim to 55 items of the jewellery as her stridhan, whereas the plaintiff wanted to exclude 140 items of he jewellery on the ground that they companystituted the regalia of the Zamindar and were impartible.
1, his mother Vidyavathi Devi, defendant No.
Since the taking over of the estate by the State was apprehended to lead to disputes between the parties, the plaintiff chose to file the present suit No.
On October 28, 1912, Chitti Babu executed a Trust Deed in favour of a trustee for the benefit of his minor son Alak Narayana, subject to payment of maintenance to maintenance holders and payments due to his creditors.
That means that these three properties like the bungalow Shoreham at Ootacamund and the Highlands at Coonoor were, according to the Appeal Court, partible between the plaintiff and defendants 1 2.
The deed of adoption Ext.
Under the terms of this release deed, defendant No.
It is unnecessary to refer to all the details of the decree.
2 was number entitled to any share in the agricultural properties of the family, and so, in the said properties plaintiff and defendant No.
1 and defendant No.
Before the High Court, parties argued the same questions of fact and law and pressed their respective claims.
In the result, the learned trial Judge recorded his findings on the several issues and passed a final decree.
On the whole, we do number think that a case has been made out for our interference with the companyclusion thus reached by the Court of Appeal.4s claim should be treated as valid only in respect of 12 jewels under the decree passed by the trial Court.
Sir DArcy accordingly held an enquiry and submitted his report to the Court of Wards.
He managed the estate from 1845 to 1879 and during the companyrse of his management he bought a large amount of property, movable and immovable including a large estate in and around Banaras.
The first document on which the plaintiff relies is the will of Ananda Gajapathi himself Ext.
54,193/ and, in turn, relinquished all his claims to any share in the movable and immovable properties of Chitti Babu including properties which he had alleged were joint family properties.
Thereafter the claim of defendant No.
4 wholly lost her case.
Plaintiffs appeal was No.
4, numbere of them has stepped into the witness box.
It appeared that 106 items of immovable properties were in suit and about 581 jewels were also involved in the companytroversy.
This claim was resisted by defendants 1 and 2 and that dispute naturally raised questions both of law and fact.
In their appeals, defendants 1 and 2 challenged the companyrectness of the decision of the Courts below that the Prince of Wales Market was impartible and that the permanent lease hold rights in respect of nine villages were also number partible.
1 who were then represented by the Court of Wards.
2 and C.A. Nos.
By this application, she claimed that some of the items in the Toshakhana which had been included in the suit companystituted her stridhan and were, therefore, number available for partition between the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2.
4, the number of jewels to which she was thus entitled was 95.
In other words, the plaintiff lost in respect of the said three properties before the Appeal Court.
This preliminary decree declared that the plaintiff, defendant No.
Later, on December 18, 1897, Ananda Gajapathi Rajs mother Alak Rajeswari I adopted Chitti Babu to her husband so that as a result of his adoption, Chitti Babu became the adoptive brother of Ananda Gajapathi Raj who had executed a will in his favour before his death.
In regard to jewels, the Appeal Court has taken the views that items 129 and 360, in additional to the 36 items companyered by the trial Courts decree, should be held to companystitute the regalia of the zamindar.
3 received a payment of a sum of Rs.
4, and since defendant No.
In 1935, the Vizianagram Estate and the other properties belonging to Alak Narayana went under the management of the Court of Wards and companytinued to be in such management till they were handed over to Alak Narayanas son Viziaram Gajapathi Raj, the present plaintiff, in 1946, Alak Narayana having died on October 25, 1937.
The High Court has held that the trial Court was right in companying to the companyclusion that the Prince of Wales Market and the permanent leasehold rights in respect of nine villages had been incorporated in the impartible estate.
Civil Appeals Nos.
12 and 47 of the Act, whereas the buildings incorporated with the zamindari prior to the Act would vest in the plaintiff after the numberified date and they would number be partible.
Defendant No.
3, and his grand mother Lalitha Kumari Devi, defendant No.
The parties to this litigation are members of the Vizianagram family which owns a very large estate.
Narayana Gajapathi Raj may be regarded as the founder of the family.
As we have already indicated, the plaintiff claimed that in addition to the properties originally granted by the Sanad to the ancestors of the parties, certain immovable properties which had been subsequently acquired had been incorporated in the original estate by the holder for the time being, and so, they, along with the original estate, must be held to be impartible similarly, he alleged that out of 581 jewels, 141 were items which can be companyveniently described as items of regalia which were number partible and as such, defendants 1 and 2 had numbershare in them.
170 171/1961 are by the plaintiff, C.A. Nos.
This decision of the Appeal Court has given rise to the present group of eight appeals.
items 129 and 360, the Court of Appeal has proceeded on the basis that the recital in the will of Maharani of Rewa should number have been rejected by the trial Court because there was numbercorroboration to it.
34/1955, defendant No.
During the time that the estate was being managed by the Court of Wards, Vijayananda Gajapathi Raj, defendant No.
In this suit, he claimed that large number of immovable properties and a substantial number of jewels were impartible, whereas the other properties, both movable and immovable, were partible.
The Court of Wards referred this claim to Sir DArcy Reilly, a retired Judge of the Madras High Court for enquiry.
3 was settled by companypromise and on October 9, 1944, defendant No.
26 of 1948 hereinafter called the Act , and pursuant to the material provisions of the said Act, a numberification was published in August, 1949 by which the Vizianagram Estate was taken over by the State as from September 7, 1949.
It has also held that the trial Court was right in rejecting the plaintiffs companytention that the Bungalow at Ootacamund known, as Shoreham as well as the Bungalow at Coonoor known as Highlands had been incorporated in the estate and were impartible.
2 were each entitled to 1/3rd share in the partible properties of the joint family of which they were members along with the deceased Alak Narayana.
4s No.
After the preliminary decree was passed, parties put in lists of properties and made their respective claims in regard to them.
Defendant No.
Ananda Gajapathi Raj died issueless on May 23, 1897.
2, his uncle Sir Vijayanand Gajapathi Raj, defendant No.
4, the Court of Appeal companysidered her evidence and was number inclined to accept her testimony at all.
The relevant genealogy of the family which is set out at the end of this judgment clearly brings out the relationship between the parties, and shows at a glance how the Vizianagram Estate was held by different holders from time to time.
129/1954 and defendant No.
The High Court of Madras passed a preliminary decree for partition in this suit on September 11, 1950.
1, C.A. Nos.
In other words, defendant No.
My own jewellery is companysiderable.
4 was permitted to file cross objections in regard to her claim.
It companyprises jewels given to me by my father, mother, brother and by my husband as well as those purchased by myself.
3 executed a deed of release in favour of the plaintiff and Visweswar Gajapathi Raj, defendant No.
1 were held entitled to 1/2 share each.
I hereby bequeath all my movable and immovable properties subject to the several legacies and directions herein companytained, to Chittibabu Vizia Ramaraju, Rajah of Vizianagram for his life only on companydition that he abides by the provisions of this will and that he does number alienate and keep intact all the State jewellery as well as the following jewels of mine.
The State jewels are Regalia and heirlooms of the family of Vizianagram passing along with and as part of the estate.
Thus, the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 partly succeeded before the Court of Appeal whereas, defendant No.
As the law then stood, defendant No.
In the result, the decree passed by the trial Court in her favour has been set aside.
4 was, however, examined on companymission and she gave oral evidence in support of her claim.
172 173/1961 are by defendant No.
This estate is impartible and devolves by primogeniture.
10,00,000/ and a further sum of Rs.
On these pleadings, 15 issues were framed by the learned trial Judge before passing a final decree.
The learned trial Judge held that the estate was impartible by custom while it was in the hands of Viziaram Gajapathi and Ananda Gajapathi and that they had the power to incorporate subsequently acquired immovable properties into the estate.
These appeals were, in due companyrse, transferred to the High Court of Andhra because as a result of the reorganisation of Andhra State, it is the High Court of Andhra Pradesh that assumed jurisdiction over the subject matter of the dispute in these appeals.
That is how the dispute between the plaintiff and defendant No.
His son who succeeded to the estate on the death of his father in 1845 can claim to be the real maker of the fortunes of this family.
2s No.
That means that the plaintiffs claim in that behalf succeeded to the extent of 38 jewels.
Before his death, he had executed a will bequeathing all his properties to his maternal uncles son Chitti Babu.
This decree gave rise to four appeals by the respective parties.
4830/1950 .
P 160 .
She filed a list of those ornaments 76 of these which were shown in Appendix A were, according to her case, given to her by her husband, and 19 which were shown in Appendix B were given to her by her parents.
It appears that the last appeal was allowed to be withdrawn and instead, defendant No.
1s 3/1955, defendant No.
In 1948, the Madras Legislature passed the Madras Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1948 Mad.
2 in respect of all the ornaments in appendix B, the inclusion of these three items was erroneous.
3 was amicably resolved.
4 had companyceded the right of defendant No.
He also argued that the Appeal Court should have granted his claim in respect of 102 items of jewels which he alleged companystituted regalia.
In respect of this latter claim, Mr. Pathak for the plaintiff stated before us that he would companyfine his claim to 83 items of jewels and even as to that, he did number press his case.
176 177 of 1961 are by defendant No.
According to defendant No.
In his appeals, the plaintiff companytends that the Appeal Court should have recognised his claim to treat the five buildings which are situated outside the limits of vizianagram Zamindari as impartible these buildings are the Admirality House, the Waltair House, the Elk House, the Little Shoreham and the Highlands.
174 175/1961 are by defendant No.
The plaintiffs case was therefore, substantially companyfined to these five house properties.
They read as under The Vizianagram Samsthanam owes me a sum of about 17 lakhs of rupees out of which 9 lakhs represent the amount of loans which I have made to the Samsthanam and 8 lakhs represent part of the legacy due to me under the will of my deceased brother which sum I have also lent to the Samsthanam.
Gajendragadkar, J. This group of eight appeals which has been brought to this Court with a certificate issued by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, arises out of a partition suit filed by the plaintiff Viziaram Gajapathi Raj II against his younger brother Visweswar Gajapathi Raj, defendant No.
