BHAIYA RAMANUJ PRATAP DEO versus LALU MAHESHANUJ PRATAP DEO & ORS. AND VICE-VERSA

Citation: [1982] 1 S.C.R. 417 · Decided: 26-08-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

417 
BHAIYA RAMANUJ PRATAP DEO 
v. 
LALU MAHESHANUJ PRATAP DEO & ORS. 
AND VICE-VERSA 
August 26, 1981 
[D.A. DESAI, A.D. KOSHAL AND R.B. MISRA, JJ.] 
Hindu Succession Act, 1956, sections 4 and 6, scope of-Whether the provi-
sions of section 6 overrides the customary Rule of primogeniture-Bihar Land Re-
forms Act, section 6, applicability of-Chota Nagpur Encumbered Estates Act, 
1876, section 12A., conditions to be fu/filled-lfldian Registration Act, sections 17 
and 49, evidentiary value of unregistered documents of. 
A 
8 
c 
Bhaiya Rudra Pratap Deo was the holder of an impartible estate, known as 
NaSaruntari estate, in the district of Palamau. The succession to the estate was 
D 
governed 
by 
the 
rule of lineal primogeniture. Under the 
said rule 
the eldest male member of the eldest line was to succeed to the estate 
while the junior members were 
entitled only 
to 
maintenance grants 
subject to resumption on extinction of the male line of the eldest branch. Rudra 
Pratap Deo Singh had a younger brother Harihar Pratap Deo who died in a state 
of jointness with his brother Rudra Pratap Deo in 1934 leaving behind his son 
Lalu Maheshanuj Pratap Deo alias Nila Bacha, and one other step son who also 
died in- 1937 unmarried. Bhaiya Rudra Pratap Deo executed a deed of mainte-
nance (Kborposh) on 14th April, 1952 in respect of eight villages. A dispute 
arose between the parties in respect of the agricultural plots of village Sigsigi. 
The proceedings under section 145 Cr!. P.C. ended in favour of Nila Bacha. 
Bhaiya Rudra Pratap Deo, therefore, filed a civil suit No. 16-of 1955, on the 
grounds that (a) a fraud was committed by including two villages, namely, Sigsigi 
and Patihari in the formal deed of khorposh dated 14th April, 1952 and (b) that 
the .khorposh grants are void under section 12A of the Cb_ota Nagpur Encumbe-
red Estates Act and the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and 
therefore, no title accrued to the defendant on that basis. The suit was contes-
ted by the defendant on the grounds amongst others: The Nagaruntari estate 
was never an impartible estate governed by the rule of primogeniture, but in 
its -origin it was a non-heritable Ghatwala Jagir and it was subsequently made 
heritable and raised to the status of a revenue paying estate 
and thus it became 
an ordinary joint family property partible amongst the members; there was no 
fraud committed by any one; and with the enforcement of the Hindu Succession 
Act, 1956, being a co-sharer with the plaintiff, he was entitled to remain in 
possession of all the eight villages covered by the khorposh deed till partition 
was made. 
The learned Subordinate Judge held that by the khorposh deed the defen-
dan 1was given all the eight villages, but he did not acquire any interest in the 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A: 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
.H 
418 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1982] I S.C.R. 
said land as the deed was against the provisions of section 12A of the Chota 
Nagpur Encumbered Estates Act and the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act; that the 
Nagaruntari Estate was an impartible estate governed by the rule of primogeniture 
but it ceased to be so after the enforcement of the Hinda Succession Act, 1956 
and since Bhaiya Rudra Pratap Deo died, during the pendency of the suit and 
after this Act had come into force, the succession would be governed by survivor-
ship and as such the legal representatives of the plaintiff as well as the defendant 
would succeed. The first appellate court held that : (a) inasmuch as the khor·· 
posh grant was not made with the sanction of the Commissioner, the grant was 
void under section 12A of the Chota Nagpur Encumbered Estates Act; and (b} 
because 
the possession of the ex-proprietor with respect to the Bakasht land 
became that of a raiyat under the State of Bihar and raiyati right was not trans. 
ferable without a regfatered document, the pos~ession of the defendant was on 
the basis of a void agreement; and (c) that after the death of Ehaiya Rudra 
Pratap Deo, section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act became applicable and both 
appellants and the defendants were entitled to succeed as co-sharers. 
The second appeal by the plaintiffs was 
partly allowed inasmuch as the 
High Court found that the heirs of Rudra Pratap Deo were entitled to get a 
decree for possession of the suit land jointly with the sole defendant as also for 
mesne profits for their share, i.e. one half in addition to the entire mesne profits 
to which Rudra Prata

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.