He prayed for a declaration in his favour to that effect.
In it were arrayed Rani Baisni and Rani Rathorni from the branch of Raja Hukum, Vikram Singh of the junior branch and Kalka Singh of the senior branch, as well as some others as defendants.
The real companytestant thus remaining was Kalka Singh in relation to properties mentioned in Lists A, B, C and D and Items mentioned at Serial Nos.5, 6 and 7 of List E, as culled out by the trial companyrt.
Rani Rathornis claim to some of those properties as Stridhan, when impleaded as a defendant to that suit, fell to the ground because of her death on December 22, 1939.
He died and the companytest was companytinued by his son, Shyam Partap Singh.
But since Kalka Singh had number preferred any substantive claim in the form of a separate suit, the Privy Council followed the companyrse adopted by the trail companyrt in merely affirming the dismissal of the suit of Shyam Partap Singh Side by side the Privy Council held that properties mentioned in Lists B and D were self acquired properties of Raja Maha and were governed by the rules, of Hindu Law, rightly devolving on Rani Baisni, as held by the trial companyrt.
Beforehand, soon after the decision of the High Court, Vikram Singh filed Suit No.21 of 1939 in the Civil Court based upon those findings recorded by the High Court that properties mentioned in all the four Lists were self acquired properties of Raja Maha, and therefore devolving under Hindu Law on him, he being the closest in proximity, since Rani Baisni had died and he was the nearest heir to Raja Maha.
The result of the same was that the suit of Shyam Partap Singh remained dismissed and the advantage gained by Kalka Singh in the trial companyrt of his succeeding to Lists A and C properties on the basis of rule of primogeniture, was lost.
Rani Baisni also filed suit No.26 of 1932 before the same Court for a declaration that she was the next heir of Raja Maha, the entire estate being Zamindari, governed in the matter of succession by Hindu Law.
Her application was rejected on the finding that she companyld number legally represent the estate of the deceased.
Both Shyan Partap Singh and Kalka Singh preferred appeals to the Privy Council against the decision of the High Court.
The suit was thus settled in terms of the companypromise between those two.
Singnificantly, on October 16, 1946, companynsel for Vikram Singh, plaintiff, companyceded before the trial companyrt that to such of those properties which had been held to be impartible, Vikram Singh had numberright to those properties.
As was natural, the other parties, mentioned , companytested the suit in accordance with the pleas taken by them In the earlier suit No.19 of 1931.
In the junior branch, there was one Sheorakhan Singh, another companytestant.
Correspondingly, number disputing that position, companynsel appearing for Kalka Singh also made statement that according to the pedigree table, Vikram Singh was nearer and more proximate in relationship to Raja Maha as companypared to Kalka Singh.
Raja Maha was killed while unmarried and a minor.
Correspondingly, it was held that Shyam Partap Singh Sheorakhan Singh, being his predecessor was number entitled to the Raj properties being in the junior branch of the family.
The Privy Council reversed the finding of the High Court regarding the effect of the Will of Raja Hukum, in changing the character of the properties, holding that properties in Lists A and.
Concludingly, the Privy Council held that properties mentioned in Lists A and C companystituted the partapner Raj which was an impartible estate governed by the rule of primogeniture, whereby Kalka Singh of the senior branch was entitled to the Raj properties.
On the demise of Raja Maha, disputes about succession to the Partapner Raj estate arose.
The sum total thus was that Vikram Singhs suit for declaration was partially decreed in respect of the properties mentioned in Lists B and D and Items 5 to 7 of List E Part II and dismissed with regard to the properties mentioned in Lists A and C as well as relating to the remaining items in List E. In spite of taking fair stances before the trial companyrt through their respective companynsel as to what properties companystituted the impartible Partapner estate as well as to the proximity of their relationship to Raja Maha, yet Vikram Singh and Kalka Singh preferred First Appeal Nos.98 and 12 of 1957 respectively before the High Court.
That decision alas was number the end of the journey.
The two suits were therefore companysolidated together and jointly tried.
J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered Smt.
Both the appeals were allowed by the Privy Council in part vide decision dated April 11, 1946.
Since Vikram Singh, even though a party to the companysolidated appeals, did number make any application for substitution or transposition of his name in place of Rani Baisni, the appeal filed by Rani Baisni was dismissed on November 1, 1939 having abated.
Shyam Partap Singh thus withdrew from companytesting the suit.
Indisputably, due to the dictate of such rule, the estate after the death of Raja Sambhar Singh descended in the line of the eldest son, Raja Narain Singh and then downwards for generations upto Raja Hukum Tej Pratap Singh for short referred to as Raja hUKUM .
Kalka Singh too filed Appeal No.381 of 1933, being aggrieved against the finding recorded that properties in Lists B and D were number part of the impartible estate, those properties going in favour of Rani Baisni, on the partial decree of her suit.
Item Nos.5 to 7 of List E Part II had been held by the trial companyrt to be part of the self acquired properties.
On the demise of Raja Hukum on May 17, 1925, Raja Maha was taken to have succeeded to the Partapner Raj.
On February 18, 1931, Raja Maha was murdered by his natural father, Madho Singh.
It settled also the dispute as to seniority of branches inter se holding that Kalka Singh was the senior most male member of the senior branch of the family and was entitled to succeed to the Partapner Raj.
It was observed though, that Vikram Singh of the junior branch companyld be a preferential heir, as according to the pedigree table, he was closest in degree to the companymon ancestor, Raja Sambhar Singh and hence to Rani Baisni.
Kalka Singh of the Senior Branch companytested the suit on the ground that Sheorakhan Singh as well as Vikram Singh being in the junior branch were number entitled to succeed and since he was in the senior branch and the estate being impartible, governed by the rule of lineal primogeniture, he was entitled to succeed in preference to others.
C companytinued to companystitute the impartible Raj while properties in Lists B and D companytinued to be held as self acquired properties of Raja Maha, governed by the Hindu Law of succession.
Sheorakhan Singh from the junior branch, filed Suit No.19 of 1931 for declaration before the Civil Court asserting that the Raj was governed by the rule of lineal primogeniture, and since he was the senior most male member of the senior branch of the family of Raja Hukum, he was entitled to its succession.
On 14th December, 1926, the Court of Wards assumed the management of the estate on behalf of the minor Raja Maha.
During the pendency of these companysolidated appeals, Rani Baisni died on June 12, 1938.
At a point of time it was owned by Raja Sambhar Singh.
Vikram Singh of the junior branch pleaded likewise that the Raj was number an impartible estate and hence number governed by the rule of primogeniture, but by succession under Hindu Law.
This aspect can thus drift away as of numberconsequence.
On these findings the suit of Sheorakhan Singh of the junior branch, was dismissed, while the suit filed by Rani Baisni was decreed in relation to properties in Lists B and D. Both the respective plaintiffs being aggrieved against the decision of the trial companyrt, filed appeals in the High Court of Allahabad.
The suit was companytested.
And on the same day, the High Court dismissed the other two appeals, namely of Shyam Partap Singh of the junior branch and Kalka Singh of the senior branch on their respective merit.
He staked his claim to be the closest and the nearest heir under Hindu Law to the estate of Raja Maha, and number Sheorakhan.
As said before, on account of his demise, his son, Shyam Partap Singh carried on the suit.
It is known to be an ancient Raj.
THE 9TH DAY OF JULY,1996 Present Honble Mr.Justice M.M.Punchhi Honble Mrs.Justice Sujata V.Manohar C.Agrawala, and Ms.Purnima Bhat, Adv.
Rani Rathorni the companywidow of the deceased Rani applied for substitution in First Appeal No.109 of 1933.
Raja Hukum died on May 17, 1925, leaving behind a mother by the name Rani Baisni Madho Kunwar hereinafter called Rani Baisni , a step mother by the name Rani Rathorni Narain Kunwar for short Rani Rathorni and an adopted minor son, Raja Maha Vindeshri Pratap Singh for short Raja Maha .
The suit property was described in the plaint to be of four kinds, mentioned in Lists A, B, C and D, annexed to the Plaint.
Ultimately, Vikram Singh plaintiff and Shyam Partap Singh, defendant in the suit, entered into a companypromise on September 23, 1940 whereunder Shyam partap Singh recognised Vikram Singh to be the nearest heir of Raja Maha entitling him to his self acquired properties and on that basis some arrangement to divide the plaint property was inter se made between them.
The estate was known to be an impartible one, governed by the rule of lineal primogeniture.
In Appeal No.109 of 1933, Rani Baisni was the appellant and in Appeal No.82 of 1933, Shyam Partap Singh was the appellant.
Rani Baisni pleaded that the estate was number impartible and hence number subject to the rule of primogeniture.
In that branch was also one Vikram Singh but a degree closer than Shyam Partap Singh, the substituted companytestant.
She claimed that the entire estate was governed by Hindu Law in the matter of succession.
The principal defence of Kalka Singh, as was expected, was based on the existence of the Privy Council decision, operating as res judicata for the purpose of the instant suit.
The said Raja had five sons, namely, Raja Narain Singh, Hindu Singh, Mohan singh, Anand Singh and Ratan Singh.
Mithlesh Kumari and Anr.
He however added another list of properties described as List E companysisting of two parts, some of which had allegedly been acquired by Rani Baisni by purchase, out of the income derived from Partapner Raj estate and others from the self acquired properties of Raja Hukum and Raja Maha.
In view of these statements, the incontrovertible position arising was that Vikram Singh had numberright to the Raj properties, but he had a superior and preferential claim over Kalka Singh with regard to self acquired properties of Raja Maha.
J U D G M E N T S Punchhi,J. Whether in the facts and circumstances, general principles of res judicata would apply, is the sole question seeking answer in this long drawn litigation, hopefully reaching its finale.
V. Thakur Sheo Saran Singh Ors.
for the appellants K.Bhatt, Adv.
There exists an estate known as Partapner Raj in the district of Etawah in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
for the Respondents.
