# SHYAM SUNDER PRASAD SINGH & ORS v. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS

- **Citation:** [1981] 1 S.C.R. 1
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1980-07-22
- **Case number:** Civil Appeals Nos. 114-119 of 1976
- **Bench:** P. N. Bhagwati, A. P. Sen, E. S. Venkataraml4.H
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/shyam-sunder-prasad-singh-ors-v-state-of-bihar-ors-8070
- **Pages:** 63

## Headnote

Hindu Law--lnterpretation of ancient texts of Smritis and commentaries
on Hi11du Law, care to be taken-"Putrika Putra" (appointed daughter's son who
by agreement or adoption becomes the so11 of the father), practice ofApplicability in Benaras and Mithila schools of law during the time of Raja
Dhrub Singh-Whether the said practice was permissible by th'e Mitakshara
law--Rule of desuetude or obsolescence, explained.
Raja Ugra Sen, who was governed by the Benaras School of Mitakshara
law established "Bettiah Raj" in or about the middle of 17th century.
It was
known as Riyasat of Sirkar Champaran consisting of four Perghunnas known
as Majhwa, Simrown, Babra and Maihsi and an impartible estate.
After the
death of his great grand son, Raia Dhrub Singh dying issueless in 1762, Raja
Jugal Kishore Singh, son of Raja Dhrub Singh's daughter Benga Babui, entered
into possession of the estate· of "Bettiah Raj".
The East India Company
officers seized the estate from him and later allotted only the zamindari of
Majhwa and Simrown, while those of Maihsi and Babra were allotted to
Srikishen Singh and Abdhoot Singh.
The last male holder of Raja Jugal Kishore
Singh was Maharaja Bahadur Narendra Kishore Singh who died issueless on
March 26, 1893, leaving behind him two widows Maharani Sheo Ratna Kuer
and Maharani Janld Kuer, who .succeeded him one after the other.
During
the lifetime of Maharani Sheo Ratna Kuer, two suits were filed claiming the
estate but they were lost in all courts including the Priry Council.
In 1897, the
management of the estate was taken over by the court of Wards Bihar and
the Government of Uttar Pradesh in respect of the areas falling in these two
States.
Maharani Janki Kuer died on November 27, 1954.
The State of Bihar,
therefore, made an application ,before the Board of ReYenue, Bihar, praying that
the estate of Maharaja Narendrn Singh which was held by late Maharnni Janki
Kuer as a limited owner hut managed by the Court of Wards be handed over to
the State of Bihar by Yirtue of the rule of escheat.
The Board of Revenue published a Notification calling upon interested parties to prefer the claim, if any,
to the properties comprised in the estate.
Since there were several claimants
taking inconsistent pleas, the Board of Revenue declined to release the estate
in favour ·of any of the claimants and as per its order dated January 18, 1955
direct.ed that the properties would be retained by the Court of Wards until
the dispute as to its succession was determined by competent Civil Court. 'The
title suit having been lost. the appellants have come up in appeals by certificate.
The State of Bihar which clairhed title by the rule of escheat also preferred
appeals .. '
Dismissing Civil Appeals Nos. 114-119 of 1976, the Court
HELD: (1) While interpreting the ancient .texts of Smritis and commentaries
on Hindu Dharmasastra, it, should be borne in mind the dynamic role played
c
D
E
F
G
by learned commentators who were like Roman Juris Consults.
The
H
'
/
A
B
c
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1981] 1 S.C.R.
commentato.rs .tried to interpret the texts so as to bring them in conformity
with the prevailing conditions in the contemporary society.
That such was
the role of a commentator is clear even from the Mitakshara itself at least in
two places-first, on the point of allotment of a larger share at a partition to
the eldest son and secondly on the question of right of inheritance of all agnates.
[56F-H}
(2) Etymologically, the word 'putrika' means a daughter (especially a
daughter appointed to raise male issue to be adopted by a father who has no
sons), and 'putrika-putra' means a daughter's son who by agreement or adoption
becomes the son of her father [20C-D]
A careful reading of the ancient texts-Mann, Yajnavalkya, (Mitakshara)
(Vijnanesvara) and Apararka (Aparaditya) Baudhayana Dharmasutra, Vishnt1
Dharmasastra, Vasishtha Dharmasutra, Parasara Madhava, Smriti Chandrika cf
Devannabhatta, Dattaka-Chandrika and Dattaka Mimansa by Nanda Pan

## Text

_Characters 0–39,771 of 165,274. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39771 for what follows._

.... ,
r
I
SHYAM SUNDER PRASAD SINGH & ORS.
v.
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS .
July 22, 1980
(P. N. BHAGWATI, A. P. SEN AND E. S. VENKATARAML4.H, JJ.]
Hindu Law--lnterpretation of ancient texts of Smritis and commentaries
on Hi11du Law, care to be taken-"Putrika Putra" (appointed daughter's son who
by agreement or adoption becomes the so11 of the father), practice ofApplicability in Benaras and Mithila schools of law during the time of Raja
Dhrub Singh-Whether the said practice was permissible by th'e Mitakshara
law--Rule of desuetude or obsolescence, explained.
Raja Ugra Sen, who was governed by the Benaras School of Mitakshara
law established "Bettiah Raj" in or about the middle of 17th century.
It was
known as Riyasat of Sirkar Champaran consisting of four Perghunnas known
as Majhwa, Simrown, Babra and Maihsi and an impartible estate.
After the
death of his great grand son, Raia Dhrub Singh dying issueless in 1762, Raja
Jugal Kishore Singh, son of Raja Dhrub Singh's daughter Benga Babui, entered
into possession of the estate· of "Bettiah Raj".
The East India Company
officers seized the estate from him and later allotted only the zamindari of
Majhwa and Simrown, while those of Maihsi and Babra were allotted to
Srikishen Singh and Abdhoot Singh.
The last male holder of Raja Jugal Kishore
Singh was Maharaja Bahadur Narendra Kishore Singh who died issueless on
March 26, 1893, leaving behind him two widows Maharani Sheo Ratna Kuer
and Maharani Janld Kuer, who .succeeded him one after the other.
During
the lifetime of Maharani Sheo Ratna Kuer, two suits were filed claiming the
estate but they were lost in all courts including the Priry Council.
In 1897, the
management of the estate was taken over by the court of Wards Bihar and
the Government of Uttar Pradesh in respect of the areas falling in these two
States.
Maharani Janki Kuer died on November 27, 1954.
The State of Bihar,
therefore, made an application ,before the Board of ReYenue, Bihar, praying that
the estate of Maharaja Narendrn Singh which was held by late Maharnni Janki
Kuer as a limited owner hut managed by the Court of Wards be handed over to
the State of Bihar by Yirtue of the rule of escheat.
The Board of Revenue published a Notification calling upon interested parties to prefer the claim, if any,
to the properties comprised in the estate.
Since there were several claimants
taking inconsistent pleas, the Board of Revenue declined to release the estate
in favour ·of any of the claimants and as per its order dated January 18, 1955
direct.ed that the properties would be retained by the Court of Wards until
the dispute as to its succession was determined by competent Civil Court. 'The
title suit having been lost. the appellants have come up in appeals by certificate.
The State of Bihar which clairhed title by the rule of escheat also preferred
appeals .. '
Dismissing Civil Appeals Nos. 114-119 of 1976, the Court
HELD: (1) While interpreting the ancient .texts of Smritis and commentaries
on Hindu Dharmasastra, it, should be borne in mind the dynamic role played
c
D
E
F
G
by learned commentators who were like Roman Juris Consults.
The
H
'
/
A
B
c
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1981] 1 S.C.R.
commentato.rs .tried to interpret the texts so as to bring them in conformity
with the prevailing conditions in the contemporary society.
That such was
the role of a commentator is clear even from the Mitakshara itself at least in
two places-first, on the point of allotment of a larger share at a partition to
the eldest son and secondly on the question of right of inheritance of all agnates.
[56F-H}
(2) Etymologically, the word 'putrika' means a daughter (especially a
daughter appointed to raise male issue to be adopted by a father who has no
sons), and 'putrika-putra' means a daughter's son who by agreement or adoption
becomes the son of her father [20C-D]
A careful reading of the ancient texts-Mann, Yajnavalkya, (Mitakshara)
(Vijnanesvara) and Apararka (Aparaditya) Baudhayana Dharmasutra, Vishnt1
Dharmasastra, Vasishtha Dharmasutra, Parasara Madhava, Smriti Chandrika cf
Devannabhatta, Dattaka-Chandrika and Dattaka Mimansa by Nanda Panditaleads to the inference that the institution of "Putrika Putra" had become obsolete
and not recognised by Hindu society for several centuries prior to the time when
Smriti-Chandrika or Dattaka Chandrika were written and these two commentaries
~
belong to a period far behind the life time of Raja Dhrub Singh
[32B-C]
Further, absence of case:s before courts within living memory in which a
claim had been preferred on the basis of application in "Putrika-Putra" form
showed that the said practice had become obsolete.· [34A]
D
Thakoor J~ebnath Singh v. The Court of Wards, (1875) 2 I.A. 163 (PC),
E
F
G
H
quoted with approval.
Sri Raja Venkata Narasimha Appa Row Bahadur v. Sri Rajah Saraneui
Venkata Purushothama Jaganadha Gopala Row Bahadur & Ors., I.L.R. (1908)
31 Mad 310; Babui Rita Kuer v. Puran Mal, A.I.R. 1916 Patna 8 approved.
Tribhawan Nath Singh v. Deputy Commissioner, Fyzabad & Ors., A.LR.
1918 Oudh 225, overruled.
(3) All digests, lectures and treatises SU,Pport the view that the vractice of
appointing a daughter as a putrika and of treating her son as "putrika-putra"
had become obsolete several centuries ago.
And, the reason for the
abandonment of the practice of appointing a daughter to raise a son by the
Hindu society is .clear from the following situation.
[46C, 49F]
In ancient times, the daughter and daughter's son were given preference
over even ·the widow of a person in the matter of succession.
·Ancient
commentators like Madhathithi and Haradatta had declared that the widow was
no heir and notwithstanding some texts in her favour, her right was not fully
recognised till Yajnavalkya stated that the widow would succeed to the estate
of a sonless person.
In Yajnavalkya Smriti, the order of succession to a male
was indicated in the following order (I) son, grancfson, great grandson, (2)
putrika-putra, (3) other subsidiary or secondary sons, (4) widow and (5) daughter. ·
It was not expressly stated that daughter's son would succeed, but the parents
were shown as the successors.
Vijnanesvara, however, interpreted the word
"cha", which meant "also" in "Duhitaraschaiva" in the text of Yajnavalkya
laying down the compact series of heirs as referring to daughter's son. But
:for this interpretation a daughter's son would have come in as an heir after
all agnates (gotrajas), as the daughter's 'son is only a cognate (Bandhu). As a
iresult of this interpretatio~, the daughter's son was promoted in rank next only
to his maternal grand-mother and his 'mother whose interest in the estate was
only a limited orie. [48H, 49A-C, E-F]
•
'
>-
'
•
SHYAM SUNDER V. STATE OF BIHA!t
3
When a person had two or more daughters, the appointment of one of them
would give her primacy over the wife and the other daughters (no\ so appointed)
:and her son (appointed daughter's son) would .. succeed to the exclusion of the
w;ife and other daughters and their sons and also to the exclusion of his own
uterine brothers (i.e. the other sons of the appointed daughter).
Whereas in
the case of plurality of sons all sons would succeed equally, in the case of
:appointment of a daughter, other daughters and their sons alongwith the wife
'would .get excluded.
To prevent this kind of inequality which would arise
among the daughters and daughter's sons, the practice of appointing a single
daughter as a putrika to raise an issue came to be abandoned in course of
time when people were satisfied that their religious feelings were satisfied by
the statement of Mann that all sons of daughters whether appointed or not
·had the. right to offer oblations and their filial yearnings were satisfied by the
promotion of the daughter's sons in the order of succession next only to the
son as . the wife and daughters had been interposed only as limited holders.
l{49F-H, 50A-C]
Ghanta Chinna Ramasubbayya & Anr. v. Moparthi Chen~huramayya, 74
~.A. 162, followed.
(4) It is incorrect to suggest that the theory of "a practice once recognised
'by Jaw becoming obsolete" was unknown and that it would continue to be in
·existence until it was taken away by a competent legislature.
The court can
declare it to be so. [53.QJ
-Shiromani & Ors. v. Hem Kumar & Ors., [1968] 3 S.C.R. 639, applied.
(5) The contention that the rule against the appointment of a daughter
by a Hindu to beget an issue for himself in Kali age enunciated by Saunaka
:and others should be treated as only directory and if any person appointed
·a daughter for that purpose in contravention of that rule still her son would
'become "putrika-putra" of the person so appointing, with all the privileges of
·a putrika putra is highly tenuous.
Where there is predominant opinion of
'Commentators supporting its non-existence in the last few centuries extending
to a period, in the instant case, prior to the life of Raja Dhrub Singh and there
are good reasons for the Hindu Society abandoning it, it would be inappropriate
1o resurrect the practice. [58E-F, 61A·C]
Sri Ba/usu Gurulingaswami v. Sri Ba/usu Ramalakshmamma & Ors. [1899]
26 I.A. 113, dissented from .
(6) The evidence on record makes it clear that the family of Raja Dhrub
Singh was governed by the Benaras School of Hindu Law and not by the
Mithila School.
Further, tlie material on record is not sufficient to lead to
the conclusion that the institution of putrika putra was in vogue during the
rdevant time even
amongst persons governed by the Mithila
School~
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.
In fact Raja Dhrub Singh as found by the High.
Court, had not appointed his daughter as a -putrika to beget a putrika putra
'for him.
It follows that the appellants who claim the estate on the above
basis cannot succeed. [62F-G, 63F]
The applicability of the above rule to Na'inbuderies of Kerala is however
1JOt decided. [62G~H]
,
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
l'
4
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1981] 1 S.C.R_
A
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 114-119 of
1976.
From the Judgment and Decree dated 15-12-1972 of the Patna·
High Court in F.A. Nos. 130, 85, 86, 87, 131, and 134 of 1966.
D. V. Patel, S. S. Johar and S. N. Mishra for the Appellants im
B
CA Nos. 114-119 of 1976.
V. M. Tarkunde, U. R. La/it, K. K. Jain, D. Goburdhan and P. PSingh for Respondents 5-22 in CA Nos. 114-115 /76.
L. M. Singhvi (Dr.), U. P. Singh and S. S. Jha for the Respondents:
. .(.
in CA 114-119 /76.
c
D
E
F
G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
VENKATARAMIAH, J. The above six appeals by certificate and'
Civil Appeals Nos. 494-496 of 1975 arise out of a common judgment
dated December 15, 1972 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna
passed in First Appeals Nos. 85 to 87, 130, 131 and 134 of 1966.
After the above six appeals and Civil Appeals Nos. 494-496 of 1975.
were heard together for sometime, we found that the above six appeals ...
'i.e. Civil Appeals Nos. 114-119 of 1976 could be disposed of by a·
separate judgment. We, therefore, proceeded with the consent of thelearned ·counsel for the parties to hear fully Civil Appeals Nos. 114119 of 1976.
By this common judgment,. we propose to dispose of
the above six appeals. The further hearing of Civil Appeals Nos. 494496 of 1975 is deferred.
The question which arises for our consideration in the. above
Civil Appeals 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 kitown · as1 'Bettiah Raj' which was under them~nagement of the Court of Wards, Bihar. 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.
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 j,ossession of the·
estate.
Since it was found that Maharani Janki Kuer was not able'.
to administer the estate, its management was taken over by the Court
of Wards, Bihar in the year 1897. Maharani Janki Kuer who was ~
limited holder of the estate died on November 27, 1954. On her death';
.ff
disputes arose amongst several persons who were parties to the suits.,
')..-
SHYAM SUNDER v. STATE OF BIHAR (Venkataramiah, J.)
5.
out of which the above appeals arise regarding the title to the 'Bettiah
Raj' estate. The State of Bihar, however, claimed that none of the
cl~imants was the heir of the last male holder and that since there
was no heir 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. We shall refer to the respective submissions of the
parties at a later stage.
It is not disputed that Raja Ugra Sen, the founder of the 'Bettiah
Raj' was governed by the Benares School of Mitakshara law as his
family had migrated from the South Western part of the present State
-Of Uttar Pradesh to the State of Bihar although in the course of the
pleadings, there is a suggestion that the family was also being governed
by the Mithila School of Mitakshara which was in force in the State
of Bihar.
The question for decision in the instant case may no doubt ulti~
A
B
c
mate!y appear to be a simple one but in order to determine the said
I>-
question, it is necessary to relate the· facts which spread over nearly
three centuries and refer to a number of Smritis, commentaries and
decisions.
The major part of the estak of 'Bettiah Raj' is situated in Champaran District of the State of Bihar. Some of its properties are situated
ju 1he State of Uttar Pradesh also. The principality known as 'Bettiah .
E"
Raj' was established by Raja Ugrasen in or about the middle of the
17th century.
It was then known as Reasut of Sirkar Champaran
consisting of four pergunnahs known as· Majhwa, Simrown, Ba bra
and Maihsi. It ·was an impartible estate. Raja Ugrasen was succeeded
by his son, Raja Guz Singh in the year 1659. · Raja Dalip. Singh, son
. of Raja Guz Singh came to -the gaddi in the year 1694 and he was
F.
succeeded by his son, Raja Dhrub Singh in the year 1715.
Raja
Dhtub Singh died in 1762 without a male issue but leaving a daughter
by name Benga Babui, who had married one Raghunath Singh, a
iBhum_ihar Brahniin of Gautam gotra. · It is said that he, had another,
daughter also, but it is not necessary to investigate into .that fact in
these cases.
On the death of Raja Dhrub Singh who was a Jethoria
c·
Brahmin of the Kashyap gotra, his daughter's son (Beriga Babui's
son), Raja Jugal Kishore Singh entered into possession of the estate
-0f 'Bettiah Raj' and was in possession thereof at the date when the
East India Company assumed the Government of the province. On
the assumption of the Government of Bengal by the East India Company, Raja Jugal Kishore Singh offered
some resistance to their
ff'
6
B
·C
D
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1981] 1 S.C.R.
authority and the Company's troops were despatched to enforce his
submission.
Raja Jugal Kishore Singh fled into the
neighbouring
State of Bundelkhand and his estates were seized arid placed under
the management of the Company's officers.
During the absence of
.
I
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. After some negotiations, the Government decided to allot
the zamindari of Majhwa and Simrown pergunnahs which formed pa'rt
-0f 'Bettiah Raj' estate to Raja Jugal Kishore Singh and to leave Babra
and Maihsi in possession of Srikishen and Abdhoot Singh.
On his
return, Raja Jugal Kishore Singh accepted the decision of the East
India .Company which was formally announced on July 24, 177 l in
the following terms : -
"The Committee of Revenue having approved of the reinstatement of Raja Jugal Kishore, we have now granted to him the
zamindari of Majhwa and Simrown pergunnahs, 'Ind 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. He was again
dispossessed in the following year as he failed to pay the Government
revenue.
Srikishen and Abdhoot refused to execute a kabulyat for
:E
the two other pergunnahs alone and they were also dispossessed. The
--~
entire Sirkar thus passed into the possession of the Government and
'1'
was held by farmers of revenue on temporary settlements until the
year 1791. 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 .. Thereafter on October 10, 1789,
~ -
F
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 Jetter to the Board of Revenue : -
"It appearing from our proceedings that the late Raja J ugal
Kishore was driven out of the country for acts of rebellion, a,nd
·G
upon his being allowed to return into the company's dominions,
. ..,.._
that the late President and Council thought proper to divide the·
zamindari of Champarun, allotting to Jugal Kishore the districts
of Majhwa and Simr()wn, and to Srikishen Singh and Abdhoct
Singh those of Maihsi and Babra, we direct that the heirs of the
· late Raja Jugal Kishore and Srikishen Singh and Abdhoot Singh
H .
be respectively restored to the possession and management of the
,
SHYAM SUNDER v. STATE OF BIHAR (Venkataramiah, J.)
7
above districts (with the exception of such parts thereof as may
'A
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 concluded with
them agreeably to the General Regulations."
All the parties were dissatisfied with the above decision. Bir Kishore
Singh who claimed to 1be 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.
Srikishen and Ab.dhoot also claimed the
entire estate on the ground that Raja Jugal Kishore Singh was not a
member of the family and had no title to the estate as "by the
Hindu Shastra the female branch is not entitled to a share of the
estate, much less the whole." They accordingly at first .refused to give
in ~heir kabulyats for the pergunnahs Maihsi and Babra; but on Mr.
Montgomerie's advice they ultimately did so under protest .and were
placed in possession of those two pergunnahs. Separate dowl settlements of Government revenue on the mahals in pergunnahs Majhwa
'fnd 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 Sirkar Champarun was t·hus divided de
facto into distinct zamindaris to be held by the grantees at revenues
'allotted to each of them separately.
Then started the first phase of
judicial proceedings which even now continue to be devil the estate
which Raja Bir Kishore Singh acquired pursuant to the orders of
Governor-General-in-Council. On the 6th day of May, 1808, Ganga
Prasad Singh, the eldest ~on 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 consideration of right to
succession as established in the family, Raja Dhrub Singh had made
over while he was still alive tpe 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 conveyance of the rajgy and
the milkeut of the estate comprising the whole of the Sirkar aforesaid
and gave him entry into the zamindari. He further alleged that when
in the year 1763 the British. Government was established, the lands
><:omprised in the said, Sirkar were attached but that Raja Srikishen
Singh continued to receive the malikana and other rights annexed to
B
c
D
E
F
G:
H
8
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1981] 1 S.C.R.
A
the zamindari upto 1770 and that in the following year, the settlement
1
"of the whole Sirk~r was made with him and from the year 1772 to
1790 although the business of the Sirkar was conducted by the Amins
and Mootahdars appointed for the purpose and Commissioner appointed
-temporarily for the collection of the revenue and at other times, his
father, Raja Srikishen received the malikana. He then proceeded to
..B
state ~he manner in which, upon the formation of the decennial setllement in 1790, Raja Srikishen was deprived of the possession of the
pergunilahs which he claimed to recover and alleged certain fraudulent
practices whereby possession had been obtained by Raja Bir Kishore
:Singh. The suit was transferred from the Zillah Court of Saran to
the Provincial Court of Patna. The suit was contested by Raja Bir
-C
Kishore Singh.
In the course of the written statement, his counsel
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 Champanm Sirkar were
D
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. h is necessary to state that he had no son 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 D)lrub Singh
.E
aforesaid having adopted Raja Jugal Kishore Singh, the father of
my client, at the time of his birth, conducted the ceremonies of
his adoption and marriage in the usual manner, and having afterwards given him the tilak he established him upon the rajgy of
the whole of the Chainparun Sirkar" .
.F
The Provincial Court dismissed the suit by its judgment dated
December 29, 1812 solely on the ground of limitaHon 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,
)--
G
Raja Anand Kishore Singh. The appeal was dismissed on July 9,
1817. In its elaborate judgment, the Sadar Diwani Adalat rejected
the ~ase of the plaintiff in that suit relating to the conveyance of the
rajgy by Raja Dhrub Singh in favour of Raja Srikishen Singh holding
that fhe document relied upon was a forgery. The above decision of
the Sadar Diwani Adalat was affirmed by the Judicial Committee of
H
the Privy Council in Rajah Dundial Singh & Ors. v. Rajah Anand.
)-
SHYAM SUNDER v. STATE OF BIHAR (Venkataramiah, J.)
9
Kishore Singh(!) by its judgment dated December 5 and 7, 1837.
The
Judicial Committee affirmed the judgment of the courts below on .\he
·sole ground of limitation.
Raja Anand Kishore Singh continued. on the Gaddi and in 1837,
the hereditary title of Maharaja Bahadur was conferred upon him.
Upon his death in 1838, without any issue, he was succeeded by "his
younger brother, Maharaja Bahadur Nawal Kishore Singh .. Maharaja
Bahadur Nawal Kishore Sillgh had two sons, Rajendra Kishore Singh
and Mahendra Kishore Singh and upon his death in the year 1855,
Maharaja Bahadur Rajendra Kishore Singh succeeded to the estate.
Maharaja Bahadur Rajendra Kishore Singh died in 1883 and his brother
Mahendra Kishore Singh J;taving pre-deceased him, he was succeeded
'by Maharaja Bahadur Hareitdra 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. So great was the esteem in which Maharaja
Harendra Kishore Singh was held by the Government that the Lt.
Governor of Bengal came to Bettiah personally to offer his condolence.
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.
On April 11, 1893, he presented a memorial to the
Lt. Governor claiming that the late Maharaja was his "Gotra Sapinda".
In the memorial, he stated , thus :
"Raja Dhrub Singh had no issue. Therefore, according to the
provisions of the Hindu Law he converted his daughter's son Jugal
Kishore Singh who belonged to the Gautam Gotra to Kashyap
Gotra and then adopting him as his son appointed him to be his
successor. 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 Honour's humble petitioner is the legal heir
and successor of the deceased Maharaja and ........... .fully capable
of managing the Raj."
A reading of the above extract of the memorial shows that the
<:ase put forward by Raja Deoki Nandan Singh was directly contrary
to the case put forward by his predecessor in the suit of1808. Whereas
in the earlier suit, his predecessor had pleaded that Raja Jugal Kishore
'Singh was the daughter's son of Raja Dhrub Singh and was not, 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
{I) (1936-37) 1 Moo. I.A. 482.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
10
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1981] 1 S.C.R.
Raja Dhrub Singh was a member of the family of Raja Dhrub Singh.
In the above said memorial, it was pleaded by the successor of theplaintiff in the suit of 1808 that .kaja 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.
On the death of Maharaja Harendra Kishore Singh, the estatecame into the possession of his senior widow, Maharani Sheo Ratna
Kuer. Within about lwo years from the date of the death of Maharaja
Harendra Kishore Singh, a suit was instituted in Title Suit No. 139 of
1895 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Tirlioot by Ram Nandan
Singh, fifth in descent from Raja Ganga Prasad Singh (who was theplaintiff in the suit of 1808) against Maharani Sheo Ratna Kuer claiming the estate of Raja Harendra Kishore Singh. The main pleas raised
by him in the suit were that the succession to the Bettiah Raj wasgoverned by the custom of male linear primogeniture; that females
were excluded from succeeding to the Raj; that Raj~ 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.
Another suit viz. Title Suit No.
108 of 1896 was filed by Girja Nandan Singh whose father Deo Nandan
Singh had submitted the memorial to the Lt. Governor of Bengal on
April 11, 1893. 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. 139 of 1895 on the point. of Raja Jugal Kishore's
adoption by Raja Dhrub Singh and exclusion of females from succession to the_ Raj, he pleaded that he was entitled to succeed to the Raf
by the rule of propinquity, as all the branches of the family were joint
in status, there being no custom of male linear primogeniture as put
forward in the suit of Ram Nandan Singh i.e. in the Title Suit No. lW
of 1895.
Both the suits were contested by Maharani Sheo Ratna Kucr.
Puring the pendency of the two suits, she died .and Maharani Jank!
Kuer, the second widow of Maharaja Harendra Kishore Singh was
brought on record as the defendant in both the suits.
Title Suit No. 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.
Against
the decree of the High Court, Ram Nandan Singh filed an appeal
before the Privy Council.
The Privy Council affirmed the decree
of the High Court in Ram Nandan Singh v. Janki Kuer(I) The Privy
H
(1) [1902] I. L. R. 29 Cal. 328-29 I. A. 178.
{
' .
~·.·
SHYAM SUNDER v. STATE OF BIHAR. (Venkataramiah, J.)
11
C"'ouncil held that tht: two pergunnahs Majhwa and Simrown which
were granted pursuant to the orders of Lord Cornwallis. to Raja Bir
.Kishore Singh becam~ the separate property of Raja Bir Kishore
Singh free from any coparcenery right of succes.sion of the branches
of the family then represented by Srikishen and Abdhoot.
They held
· that from the letter of Lord Cornwalis
dated September 22, 1790
extracted above, it was clear that Raja Jugal Kishore Singh had been
driven out from the couutry for the acts of rebellion and that the
Government was at liberty' to divide the Sirkar into two portions
and to grant one portion to Raja Bir Kishore Singh and another portion
to Srikishen and Abdhoot in direct exercise of sovereign authority. It
further held that the grants so made by the Government proceeded
from grace and favour a.lone.
It was further held that the estate
which was granted in favour of Raja Bir Kishore Singh became his
separate and self-acquired property though with all the incidents of
the family tenure of the old estate as an impartible Raj. Consequently,
the plaintiff was not entitled to claim· it on the basis of the custom
of male linear primogeniture. The Privy Council also held that there
was no inconsistency betweeli a custom of impartibility and the rights
of females to inherit and therefore, Maharani Sheo Ratna Kuer and
after her Maharani Janki Kuer could succeed to the estate of their
husband, Maharaja Harendra Kishore Singh and remain in possession
thereof.
The Privy Counc)l, however, declined to decide the question
whether Raja Jugal Kishme Singh had been adopted by his maternal
grandfather, Raja Dhrub Singh or _became his son and a member
of his family by some customary mode of affiliation i.e. as Putrika
P~tra and left the question open in the following terms : -
·
"There rema.ins only the issue whether Raja Jugal Kishore
was adopted by his maternal grandfather Raja Dhrub Singh, or
became his son and a member of his family by some customary
mode of affiliation. The determination of this issue against the
appellant wou!d be fatal to his case,
because in that case he
would not be able to prove that he was of the same family as
·the late Sir Harendra.
The learned· judges have not found it
necessary for the decision of the present case to decide this issue;
and their Lordships agree with them in thinking that it is the
better course not to do so, because the same issue may hereafter
arise for decision between different parties."
The other suit i.e. Title Suit No. 108 of 1896 which was filed.
by Girja Nandan Singh
was dismissed
by the trial court and the
appeal filed by him before the High Court of Judicature at Fort
William in Bengal (Calcutta) was also dismissed on April 14, 1889,
the same day on which the High Court had disposed of the appeal
A ..
B
c
D
]!'
.G
in the other suit.
H
2-646 S.C. India/80
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
12
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1981] 1 S.C.R. .
A few years 1ater, one Bishun Prakash Narain Singh, fifth in
descent from Abdhoot Singh also filed a suit in Title Suit No. 34 of
1905 in the wurt of the Subordinate Judge of Chapra, claiming title
to the estate of Maharaj::i Harendra Kishore Singh on the footing that
his branch of the family was joint in status with Maharaja Harendra
Kishore Singh and so he was entitled to succeed to him under the
rules of survivorship. That suit failed in all the· courts inCluding the
Privy Council whose juclgment is reported in Rajkumar Babu Bishun
Prakash Maraain Singh v. Maharani·· Janki Kuer & Ors.(1)
The
genealogy of the family relied on in the above suit which is found
at page 858 in 24 Cal. W. N. is given below to facilitate the understanding
of the relationship amongst the parties : -
Raja Daleep Singh
(died 1715)
I
Raja Dhr~b Singh
(died 1762)
I
Daughter's son ·
(Putrika Putra)
Raa U grasen Singh (died l 659)
Raja Gaj SiJgh (died 1694)
I
I
Pirthi Singh
(dead)
I I
Srikishen Singh
· (dead)
[
I
S
.. I . h
. atraJit S1 ng
(dead}
. h
I
Bis un Prakash
Narayan Singh
(Plaintifi)
(Fifth in descent
from Satrajit
Singh)
Raja Jugal Kishore Singh
(died 1785)
\
Ram Nandan
Singh
(Defendant
Girja Nandan
Singh
(Defendant
Raja Bir Kishore Singh
(died 1816)
No. 2)
(Fifth in
descent from
Srikishen Singh)
\
I
Maharaja Anand
Kishore Singh
(died 1838)
.
\
MaharaJa Nawal
Kishore Singh
(died 1855)
1
No. 3)
(Fourth in
descent from
Srikishen Singh)
Maharaja kajendra
Kishore Singh
(died 1883)
I~
Mahendra
Kishore Singh
(died before
his brother)
l
Maharaia Sir Harendra
Kishore Singh, who died
childless on 26th March,
Jim,
leaving
(l) Rani Sheoratan Koer
·
died
(2} Rani Janki Koer
Defendant No. 1
------
H
(1) 24 Cal. W. N. 857
........
1J- -
)--
SHYAM. SUNDER v. 'STATE OF BJHAR (Venkataramiah, J.)
13
I
It should be menti0ned here that in none of the suits-Title
Suit No. l:W of 1895, Title Suit No. 108 of 1896 and Title Suit No. 34
of 1905 refe~ed to above, the question whether Raja Jugal Kishore
Singh had become a m~mber of the family of Raja Dhrub Singh
either by virtue of adGplion or as Putrika Putra (appointed daughter's
t>on) was decided even though the plaintiff in each of the above suits
had.raised such a pl1::a .
. 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 C0urt of Wards, Bihar in 1897, a declaration being
made that Maharani Janki Kuer was
incompetent to manage the
estate. 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.
Maharani Janki Kuer
took up her residence at Allahabad where she .eventually died childless
.and intestate on November 27, 1954. 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 Prade~h. 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 no heir
of the last male
holder
who could lay claim to it.
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 comprised in
the estate.
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.: some uthers 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.
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.
The Board of Revenue, ·however, declined to release the
· estate in fav.our of any of the claimants and on January 18, 1955
A
c
D
E
F
G
passed an 'order to the effect that the Co:urt of Wards would retain
H
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1981] 1 S.C.R.
charge ·of the prop~rties comprised in the estate until the dispute as
to its succession was determined. by a competent civil court Thereafter
one Ram Bux Singh instituted a suit being Title Suit No. 3 of 1955
on the file of the Civil Judge at Varanasi claiming title to the estate.
That suit was, however, allowed to be withdrawn with the permission
of the court.
I
Subsequently came to be instituted Title Suit No. 44 of 1955 on
the file of the Subordinate Judge at Patna by Suresh Nandan Singh.
On his death, his son, Davendra Nandan Singh and his widow Ram
Surat Kuer were brought on record as
plaintiffs.
That suit was
dismissed alongwith two other suits with which alone we are concerned
in these appeals reference to which will be made hereafter.
Since
the plairitilis in the above suit were also defendants in the said two
other suits, the plaintiffs therein filed three First Appeals Nos. 169.
170 and 171 of 1966 before the High Court of Patna against the
decrees passed in the three suits.
All the aforesaid three appeais
were dismissed for non-prosecution by the High Court.
We are,
therefore, not concerned with the claim of the plaintiffs in that suit
in these appeals.
The two other suits that were filed were Title Suit No. 25 of
1958 and Title Suit No. 5 of 1961.
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 not as his daughter's son as alleged subsequently
by some others; that the last male holder of the estate was Maharaja
Harendra Kishore Singh, the great great grandson of the said Raja
Jugal Kishore Singh and that plaintiff No:
1 in the suit, Ambika
P_rasad 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. It was pleaded that plaintiffs Nos. 2
and 4 to 8 and 10 to 13 being next in degree to the plaintiff No. 1
and plaintiff No. 14 being the wife of plaintiff No. 7 and plaintiff
No. 9 being the mother of plaintiffs Nos. 10 to 13 had also joined
the suit in order to avoid multiplicity of suits and conflict of interest.
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 lmd been repudiated
and a fresh family arrangement had been entered into by the. plaintiffs
which was bonafide settling their claims to the estate.
Under the
said family arrangement, it had been agreed that the estate in the
event of their succeeding in the suit shou:ld be distributed amongst
. i'
.,
----<.·
SHYAM SUNDEii. v.