8 produced on behalf the appellant to show that Narain Raja was born at Barewa.
The Title Suit and the Rent Suit were heard together by the Additional Sub Judge, Motihari who, by his judgment dated August 18, 1927 decreed the Title Suit filed by Rama Raja and dismissed the Rent Suit filed by Rani Chhatra Kumari Devi.
Shri Prahlad Sen after whose death the estate came into the possession of Shri Mohan Vikram Sah, popularly known as Mohan Raja.
There is evidence that Rama Raja died in Bombay and his dead body was cremated in Banaras.
A preliminary decree Ex.
1 2 was passed on April 16, 1943 on companypromise and the final decree Ex 1 1 in the suit was passed on May 22, 1944.
Taking all the events and circumstances of Narain Rajas life into account we are satisfied that long before the end of 1949 which is the material time under Art.
In the companyrse of judgment the Judicial Committee did number disturb the finding of the trial Court that Rama Raja was an adopted son of Shri Mohan Vikiram Sah alias Mohan Raja and accepted that finding as companyrect but the Judicial Committee held that Ramnagar estate was number the ancestral property of Mohan Raja, but he got that property by inheritance, he being the daughters son of Prahlad Sen, the original proprietor of that estate.
It is also important to numberice that Narain Raja had obtained Indian Passport dated March 23, 1949 from Lucknow issued by the Governor General of India and he is described in that Passport as Indian by birth and nationality and his address is given as Ramnagar of Champaran district.
After the death of Mohan Raja the estate came into the possession of Rani Chhatra Kumari Devi, the vidow of Mohan Raja, and after the death of Rani Chhatra Kumari Devi, the estate came into the possession of Rama Raja alias Mohan Bikram Sah, the father of the respondent Narain Raja.
There are documents which prove acquisition of properties in the name of Narain Rajas wife F D, F 2 .
On behalf of the appellant Mr. Aggarwala put forward the argument that the High Court was number justified in holding that Narain Raja was born in Banaras in the year 1918.
His wife belonged to Darkoti in Himachal Pradesh near Patiala.
173 of the Constitution for being chosen to fill a seat in the Bihar Legislative Assembly.
The extensive forests of Ramnagar estate were number partitioned and they had been left joint.
On behalf of the respondent R.W. 9 G. S. Prasad was examined to prove that Narain Raja was born at Banaras.
On April 11, 1962 Kedar Pandey filed an election petition challenging the election of the respondent.
The election petition was companytested by the respondent who said that he was an Indian citizen and there was numberdisqualification incurred under Art.
The Tribunal, therefore, declared that the election of the respondent was void.
Rama Raja in turn filed T.S. No.
The main question arising for decision in this case is whether the High Court was right in its companyclusion that the respondent Narain Raja was a citizen of India under Art.
In order to prove his case the appellant examined two witnesses Sheonath Tewari W. 18 and N.D. Pathak P.W. 15 .
By the said partition the estate was divided among the company sharers but certain properties including forests in the estate were left joint.
Narain Raja used to make settlement of the forests on behalf of the Raj and pattas used to be executed by him.
estate had an extensive area of Bakasht lands.
W of the year 1947.
There was an appeal to the High Court of Patna which dismissed the appeal.
173 of the Constitution of India to be a candidate for election as he was number a citizen of India.
4 of 1923 against Rama Raja the Court of Sub Judge, Motihari with regard to a village which Rama Raja held in Ramnagar estate on the basis of a Sadhwa Patwa lease.
It is in evidence that the daughter of Prahlad Sen was married to Shri Birendra Vikram Sah, the father of Mobart Raja.
The High Court held that their evidence was acceptable.
This suit was filed on September 29, 1942 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Motihari.
W/3, W/4, and W/5.
Thereafter, he became the President of the Bettiah Sub divisional Swatantra Party and then Vice President of Champaran District Swatantra Party.
The further case of the respondent was that he had lived in India since his birth and that he was a resident of Ramnagar in the district of Champaran and number of Barewa in Nepal.
After the decision of Privy Council, Rani Chhatra Kumari Devi again came into possession of Ramnagar estate and companytinued to remain in possession till she died in 1937.
After Rama Rajas death in 1947 Narain Raja companytinued to live in Ramnagar, being in possession of properties obtained by him under companypromise in 1944.
Against the judgment of the High Court appeals were taken to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
Appeals from the judgment and decree dated March 26, 1964 of the Patna High Court in Election Appeals Nos.
Reverting to the history of Narain Rajas life from 1950 onwards, it appears that he had married his wife in 1950.
34 of 1924 in the Court of Subordinate Judge of Motihari against Rani Chhatra Kumari Devi and others claiming title to Ramnagar estate and for possession of the same on the basis of his adoption by Mohan Raja.
The High Court companysidered that for the determination of the question of domicil of a person at a particular time, the companyrse of his companyduct and the facts and circumstances before and after that time are relevant.
The place of birth of the respondent is mentioned in this plaint as Barewa Durbar.
F 3 and F 5 .
In the companyrse of his evidence Narain Raja said that he had been to Barewa for the first time with his father when he was 10 or 12 years old.
Exhibit F 4 shows the purchase of 11 bighas and odd land at Patna by Narain Raja.
After Gram Panchayats were established, the Union Board was abolished.
According to Kedar Pandey the respondent was related to the royal family of Nepal and the father of the respondent Rama Raja owned about 43 bighas of land and a house at Barewa in Nepal in which the respondent had a share along with his three other brothers.
According the case of the appellant Narain Raja was born at a place called Barewa in Nepal.
Narain Raja and his wife and children possessed 500 or 600 acres of land in the district of Champaran.
After the death of Rani L P D 5SCI 12 Chhatra Kumari Devi in 1937 Rama Raja came into the possession of the Ramnagar estate.
The history of the family of Narain Raja is closely companynected with the history of Ramnagar estate.
8 and 10 of 1963.
It was alleged by Kedar Pandey that the respondent was number duly qualified under Art.
In view of this circumstance, the Judicial Committee held that though Rama Raja was the adopted son of Mohan Raja, Rama Raja was number entitled to the estate in view of the will executed by Mohan Raja in favour of Rani Chhatra Kumari Devi in the year 1904.
It is also in evidence that during the lifetime of Rama Raja there was a partition suit in the year 1942 No.
On these findings the High Court took the view that Narain Raja was duly qualified for being elected to the Bihar Legislative Assembly and the election petition filed by the appellant Kedar Pandey should be dismissed.
But the Tribunal refused to make a declaration that Kedar Pandey was entitled to be elected to Bihar Legislative Assembly for that Constituency.
The High Court further found that long before the year 1949 Narain Raja had acquired a domicile of choice, in Indian territory and, therefore, acquired the status of a citizen of India both under Art.
The High Court found, on examination of the evidence, that Narain Raja, the respondent before us, was born in Banaras on October 10, 1918 and that the respondent was living in India from 1939 right upto 1949 and even thereafter.
From the year 1938 onwards Narain Raja lived in Ramnagar.
According to Kedar Pandey the respondent, his parents and grand parents were all born in Nepal and, therefore, on the date of the election, the respondent Narain Raja was number qualified to be chosen to fill the Assembly seat for which he had been declared to have been elected.
After the poll the respondent, Narain Raja was declared elected as member of the Bihar Legislative Assembly by majority of valid votes.
The High Court in appeal set aside the judgment of the Tribunal and upheld the election of the respondent Narain Raja.
In 1950 or 1951 Narain Raja had established a Sanskrit Vidalya in Ramnagar in the name of his mother, called Prem Jananl Sanskrit Vidyalaya.
Mohan Raja died without any male issue but during his lifetime he had adopted Rama Raja, the father of the respondent and by virtue of a will executed by Mohan Raja in the year 1904 in favour of his wife Rani Chhatra Kumari Devi the Rani became entitled to the Ramnagar estate on the death of Mohan Raja which took place in 1912 , in preference to the adopted son Rama Raja since the properties belonged to Mohan Raja in his absolute right and number as ancestral properties.
The marriage had taken place at Banaras.
40 of 1942 for the partition of the properties of the Ramnagar estate among Rama Raja and his sons including the respondent.
Then, there are registered pattas excluded by Narain Raja of the year 1945, which are Exs.
1 1889 40 Oh.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
Exhibits 1 2 and 1 1 are the preliminary and final decrees granted in that suit.
This plaint was apparently filed in a suit brought by the respondent for the realisation of money advanced by the respondents mother to one Babulal Sah.
The respondent claimed that he was born in Banaras and number at Barewa.
There was also a plaint Ex.
He also said that he had number gone to Barewa for ten years before 1963.
The daughter prosecutes her studies in Dehradun.
Both the appellant and the respondent preferred separate appeals against the judgment of the Election Tribunal to the High Court of Judicature at Patna.
After partition, he and his wife acquired properties in the district of Champaran, in Patna and in other places.
Narain Raja was a voter in the Gram Panchayat and he was elected as the Vice President of the Union called D.C.M. Union of Ramnagar.
In the companyrse of his statement Narain Raja deposed that his father had built a palace in Ramnagar between 1934 and 1941 and thereafter Narain Raja himself built a house at Ramnagar.
D. 216.
The story of Narain Rajas political activities is as follows There was a Union Board in Ramnagar before Gram Panchayats had companye into existence, of which Narain Raja was the Chairman or President.
Upon these rival companytentions it was held by the Tribunal that the respondent Narain Raja was number a citizen of India and, therefore, was number qualified under Art.
5 of the Constitution of India on the material date.
After the partition Narain Raja was looking after the properties which were left joint and was the manager thereof.
In the year 1923, Rani Chhatra Kumari Devi had filed R.S. No.
976 and 977 of 1964.
He had also his houses in Bettiah, Chapra, Patna and Benaras.
It appears that in the year 1927 Rama Raja had taken possession of Ramnagar estate and got his name registered in Register D and remained in possession till the year 1931 when he lost the suit in Privy Council.
8 and 10 of 1963.
Later on the two candidates Parmeshwar Prasad Roy and Suleman Khan withdrew their candidatures.
There is the partition suit between Narain Raja and his brothers in the year 1942.
P. Varma and D. Goburdhun, for the respondent In both the appeals .
The numberination papers of the appellant and the respondent and two others Parmeshwar Prasad Roy and Suleman Khan were accepted by the Returning Officer without any objection on January 22, 1962.
B. Agarwala, Jagdish Panday, Chinta Subbarao, M. Rajagopalan and B.P. Jha, for the appellant, In both the appeals .
The appeal was decided in favour of Rani Chhatra Kumari Devi and the result was that the Title Suit filed by Rama Raja was dismissed and Rent Suit filed by Rani Chhatra Kumari Devi was decreed.
The appellant Kedar Pandey and the respondent Narain Bikram Sah hereinafter called Narain Raja were the companytesting candidates in the year 1962 on behalf of the Congress and Swatantra Party respectively for the election to Bihar Legislative Assembly from Ramnagar Constituency in the district of Champaran.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami, J. Both these appeals are brought by certificate against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dated March 26, 1964, pronounced in Election Appeals Nos.
Narain Raja managed these properties from Ramnagar.
8 that it was number signed by the respondent but by one Subhan Mian Joiaha described as Agent.
Before he had built his house, Narain Raja lived in his fathers palace.
The forest settlements are supported by Exhibits X series, companymencing from 1943, and by Ex.
