129/1954 and defendant No.
1.72 to 177 of 1961 .
It is unnecessary to refer to all the details of the decree.
1 in C. A. Nos.
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.
C. Setalvad, C. K. Daphtary, SolictorGeneral of India, Mohan Kumragamangalam,G. Ramakrishna, S.Mohan, T. Suryanarayana Murthy and T.V.R. Ttachari, for the appellant in G. As.
In the result, the decree passed by the trial Court in her favour has been set aside.
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, lie placed the onus to prove incorporation on the plaintiff.
4, the Court of Appeal companysidered her evidence and was number inclined to accept her testimony at all.
This claim was resisted by defendants 1 and 2 and that dispute naturally raised questions both of law and fact.
In regard to the claim made by defendant No.
4 also actively joined the dispute by filing an application No.
172 and 173 of 1961 and respondent No.
1 were held entitled to 1/2 share each.
Defendant No.
In the result, the learned trial judge recorded his findings on the several issues and passed a final decree.
At this stage, defendant No.
According to defendant No.
174 175/11961 are by defendant No.
March 19.
In other words, the plaintiff lost in respect of the said three properties before the Appeal Court.
4s No.131/1954.
In regard to the two other bungalows, both the companyrts have found against the plaintiff.
4, numbere of them has stepped into the witness box.
P 157 .
174 175 of 1961 .
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.
In regard to jewels, the Appeal Court has taken the views that items 129 and 3 60.
1 in C.A. Nos.
In other words, defendant No, 4s claim should be treated as valid only in respect of 12 jewels under the decree passed by the trial Court.
1, his mother Vidyavathi Devi , defendant No.
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.
Appeals from the judgment and decree dated March 30, 1956 of the former Andhra Pradesh Court in 0.
In support of their respective companytentions, the parties were companytent to rely mainly on documentary evidence except for defendant No.
The learned trial judge held that tile 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.
2 in C. As.
The Admirality House was purchased in 1891 by Ananda Gajapathi for a sum of Rs.4 wholly lost her case.
1, C. A. Nos.
Before the High Court, parties argued the same questions of fact and law and pressed their respective claims.
170 and 171 of 1961 and respondent No.
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.
As regards the state jewellery in my possession such as Sarpesh Nakshatra joth, jayamala, Emeralds Bhjuaband, Diamond Bujuaband 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.
170 177 of 1961.
170 171/1961 are by the plaintiff, C.A. No.
34/1955, defendant No.
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.
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.
3 executed a deed of release in favour of the plaintiff and Visweswar Gajapathi Raj, defendant No.
170 177 of 1961 .
The reference to the items is according to the list made by Mr. Sathianathan Ext.
Defendant No.
The result is, the appeals preferred by defendants 1 and 2 fail and are dismissed.
After the preliminary decree was passed, parties put in lists of properties and made their respective claims in regard to them.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by 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, defendent No.
2 was number entitled to any share in the agricultural properties of the family, and so, in the said properties plaintiff and 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.
4 was permitted to file cross objections in regard to her claim.
3, made a claim before the Court of Wards for his half share in all the properties of Chitti Babu, except the impartible estate.
4830/1950 .
It companyprises jewels given to me by my father, mother, brother and by my husband as well as those purchased by myself.
That is how the dispute between the plaintiff and defendant No.
170 and 171 of 1961 and respondent No.
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.
The High Court of Madras passed a preliminary decree for partition in this suit on September 11, 1950.
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.
That leaves the plaintiffs appeals to be companysidered and in these appeals, Mr. Pathak has companyfined his arguments to the 5 bungalows owned by the family which are outside the limits of the Vizianagram Zamindari.
Thereafter the claim of defendant No.
This estate is impartible and devolves by primogeniture.
Narayana Gajapathi Raj may be regarded as the founder of the family.
2 similarly set up a claim to 55 items of the Jewellery as her stridhan, where as the plaintiff wanted to exclude 140 items of the jewellery on the ground that they companystituted the regalia of the Zamindar and were impartible.
174 to 177 of 1961 .
By this application, she claimed that some of the items in the Toshakhana which had been included in the suitconstituted her stridhan and were, therefore, numberavailable for partition between the plaintiff anddefendants 1 and 2.
in 413.
During Clitti Babus life time the Impartible Estate Acts passed by the Madras Legislature in 1902, 1903 and 1904 came into force.
4 in As.
4, and since defendant No.
174 and 175 of 1961 and respondents Nos.
2 and C. A. Nos.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
1 who were then represented by the Court of Wards.
Sir D Arcy accordingly held an enquiry and submitted his report to the Court of Wards.
2 on the one hand and their uncle, defendant No.
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.
It appeared that 1.06 items of immovable properties were in suit and about 581 jewels were also involved in the companytroversy.
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.
2s No.
495/1949 on the file of the High Court of Madras for partition of the joint family properties.
4,the number of jewels to which she was thus entitled was 95.
Under the terms of this release deed, defendant No.
3 and 4 in C. As.
170 to 173 of 1961 and respondents Nos.
This decree gave rise to four appeals by the respective parties.
V. Viswanatha Sastri, D. Y. Sastri and R.Gopalakrishnan for the appellants in G. As.
The trial Court has held that three out of these 5 bungalows had been incorporated into the impartible estate, whereas the Appeal Court has differed an that point.
Thus, the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 partly succeeded before the Court of Appeal whereas, defendant No.
On these pleadings, 15 issues were framed by the learned trial judge before passing a final decree.
2, his uncle Sir Vijayanand Gajapathi Raj, defendant No.
4 and 5 in G. As.
He managed the estate from 1845 to 1879 and during the companyrse of his management lie bought a large amount of property, movable and immovable including a large estate in and around Banaras.
Government intervened and brought about an ambicable settlement between the two Zamindars.
1s 3/1955, defendant No.
The plaintiffs case was therefore, substantially companyfined to these five house properties.
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.
1 and defendant No.
The parties to this litigation are members of the Vizianagram family which owns a very large estate.
These were items 20, 45, 49, 54, 186, 203, 230, 348, 349, two of the gold anklets in items 364, and 535 and items 136, 138, 141, and 297.
4s claim was partly recognised by the learned judge who passed a decree in her favour in respect of 15 items of jewels claimed by her.
S. A. Nos.
In 1948, the Madras Legislature passed the Madras Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1948 Mad.
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.
That means that the plaintiffs claim in that behalf succeeded to the extent of 38 jewels.
This decision of the Appeal Court has given rise to the present group of eight appeals.
3, and his grand mother Lalitha Kumari Devi, 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.
addition to the 16 items companyered by the trial Courts decree, should be held to companystitute the regalia of the zamindar.
On his death, Alak Narayana succeeded to the estate.
4 had companyceded the right of defendant No.
Plaintiff s appeal was No.
At his death he left behind him his only son Ananda Gajapathi Raj and his daughter Appala Kondayamba I. Appala Kondayamba I subse quently became the Maharani of Rewa.
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.
Civil Appeals Nos.
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.
The deed of adoption Ext.
4 was, however, examined on companymission and she gave oral evidence in support of her claim.
He found that when the estate became impartible tinder Act 11 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.
It appears that the last appeal was allowed to be withdrawn and instead, defendant No.
10,00,000/ and a further sum of Rs.
As the law then stood, defendant No.
S. Pathak, P. Ram Reddy, V. V. Raghavam, K. S. Reddy and A. V. V. Nair, for the appellant in C. A. Nos.
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 inpartible estate.
During the time that the estate was being managed by the Court of Wards, Vijayananda Gajapathi Raj, defendant No.
Chitti Babu died on September, 11, 1922.
In regard to 36 out of the 38 jewels, both the companyrts have held companycurrently against defendants 1 2 and in favour of the plaintiff, and in respect of the two jewels which have been added to the list by the Court of Appeal, viz.,
129 and 131 of 1954 and 3 and 34 of 1955.
12 and 47 of the Act.,
This settlement Ext.
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.
3 received a payment of a sum of Rs.
This preliminary decree declared that the plaintiff, 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.
He also found that whatever was an integral part of the impartible zamindari of Vizianagrarn 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.
172 173/1161 are, by defendent 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.
3 was amicably resolved.
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.
176 177 of 1961 are by defendant No.
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.
176 and 177 of 1961 and respondent No.
Ananda Gajapathi Raj died issueless on May 23, 1897.
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.
B. Agarwala and K. K. Jain, for the appellant in C. As.
3 was settled by companypromise and on October 9, 1944, defendant No.
The Court of Wards referred this claim to Sir D Arcy Reilly, a retired judge of the Madras High Court for enquiry.
