RAJ KUMAR MOHAN SINGH & ORS. versus RAJ KUMAR PASUPATINATH SARAN SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [1969] 1 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 19-04-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
A 
B 
c 
D 
.. 
E 
F 
.. 
G 
H 
1 
RAJ KUMAR MOHAN SINGH & ORS. 
v. 
RAJ KUMAR PASUPATINATH SARAN SINGH & ORS. 
April 19, 1968 
[J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.] 
Oudh Estates Act 1869, ss. 13(1) an~ 22(71---;Testator making will 
less than three nionths b.ejore death-Directing widow to adopt son-
S1'ch son \vhethcr a r)erson who would have succ~eded to t~te estate or 
interest therein within the ni.eaning of s. 13(1)-Widow gets t1tle to estate 
under s. 22(7) in the absence of heirs 
under els. (1) to ~6)-Su_bse
. quent adoption of son under husband's authority does n~t d1yert widow 
of her title-She does not lose title by adver~e possession if estate is 
manag~d by Co1•rt of Wards or adopted son. 
Transfer of Property Act, s. 43-Applies only wl1en transfer is for 
consideration. 
S who held ·a Talukdari Estate governed by the provisions of the 
Oudh Estates Act 1 of 1869 died without legitimate c~ildren. Ei!;ltt days 
before his death on June 21, 1900 he. executed a will under which (a) 
his widow J was directed to adopt a son as soon as possible, (b) the 
Court of Wards was to manage the estate till a male successor could 
take over the management, (c) J was during her life-time to be paid a 
monthly allowance of one thousand rupees.· In 1901 J, as directed by 
the aforesaid will, adopted a son B. Till 1920 when B attained majority 
the Court of Wards managed the estate and thereafter it was managed 
by B, 
In 1932, one year before J's death, B executed a deed of Trust 
in respect of the estate properties principally for the benefit of his credi-
tors \Vilh .the residue in favour of his son 'the Senior Rajkumar'. 
ln 
1936 B revoked this deed. 
In 1946 he made a will bequeathing 
the 
estate in favour of his second son 'the Junior Rajkumar. 
After his death 
in the san1e year there was litigation between 'the Senior Rajkumar' and 
the 'Junior Rajkumar' the former 
claiming the 
estate under the 
Trust 
Deed of 1932 and the latter under 1the Will of 1946. The. trial rourt 
held that the Trust Deed was validly executed. and that the will was ope-
rative in rc'.ipect of •the. properties not covered by the Trust. 
The High 
Court in appeal also held the Trust Deed to be valid. 
The Junior Raj-
kun1ar appealed to this Court. 
On the contentions of the parties the 
fo1Jowing questions arose for consideration : (i) Whether on a true inter~ 
pretation of the will of S, interest in the estate was intended to be C-On-
ferred on B; (ii) Whether the will of S, having been made less than three 
months before his death it could operate in favour of B in vie\\-· of the 
provision in s, 13 (1) of the Oudh Estates Act; (iii) 
Whether in view 
of s. 22(7) of the. Act B had a vested interest in •the estate during the 
life-time of J; (iv) whether B's adoption related back to the date of the 
death of S.; (v) whether before the trust deed was execlllted by B in 
1932 he had acquired title to the estate by adverse possession against J· 
(vi) whether S, 43 of the Transfer of Property Act 
precluded 
th~ 
appe1lants from cha11enging the Trust Deed. 
HELD : (i) In the will of S. it was laid down that after his death 
his wife should adopt a son and the Court. of Wards should manage ¢he 
estate on behalf of the son so adopted. 
This indicates by necessary 
• 
• 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1969] I S.C.R. 
implication that the adopted son was on adoption 
intended to be 
lhc 
beneficiary of the estate [7 FJ 
·(ii)· The 5"n adopted by the widow in pumiance of the authority 
from :he talukdar would wider the provisions of the Act, be deemed to 
he a person v.·ho \\'ould have succeeded to th~ estate or interest therein 
--:ithin the meaning of s. 13(1) of the Act. 
Therefore the fact that S 
died . within thrc-e. months of the date. when his will was executed 
and 
attested did not operate under s. I 3 of the Act as a bar to the acquisition 
of an interest by B under the will of S. [13F, 14C] 
Maharani lndar Klu1.\'0r and Udit 
Narayan \'. Malzar1111i 
Jaipal 
K1mwar. L.R. 15 I.A. 127, Bhaiya Rabidat Si1111h v. Maharani 
Indar 
Kunwar & Or.I'. LR. 16 I.A. 53 Abdul Latif\', Abadi JJegam, 
L.R. 
61 
I.A. 322, applied. 
·(iii) But under the will of S. the devise of the residue in favour of B 
could beeome effective only on his adoption hy J. Between the date of 
the death of S. and Che adoption of a son there was intestacy in respect of 
the talukdari estate. 
As under Hindu Jaw, so under the Oudh Estates Act 
1869 the estate di
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.