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

Citation: [1970] 1 S.C.R. 428 · Decided: 29-04-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH

Judgment (excerpt)

RAJ KUMAR MOHAN SINGH & ORS. 
v. 
RAJ KUMAR PASUPATINAm SARAN SINGH & ORS. 
April 29, 1969 
[1. C. SHAH, V. RAMAswAMI AND G. K. M!TTBll, 11.J 
B 
Oudh Esraus Act 1 of 1869-Ss. 8 and 22(6) if ,.buttabk p,.sump. 
lion exists thaJ non~tcluqdari estate also dtvolvu upon single heir as in 
case o/ taluqdcri estate. 
Section 8 of the Oudb Estates Act 1 of 1869 provided for the prepara-
tion of list! of taluqdars alid grantees, and another list of taluqdars whose 
estates, according to the custom of the family on and before 13th February, 
C 
1856, ordinarily devolved upon a single heir. 
The taluqdari estate of 
Tiloi was entered in the second list. Upon the death of the taluqdar and 
in the absence of any brother or a male lineal descendant, the estate 
devolved, in accordmce with the provisions of s. 22(6) upon the widow 
of the deceued taluqdar for her life. Thereafter she adopted a son. 
The 
adopted son by •a deed of trust executed in August, 1932, settled certain 
propenies. 
By judgment dated April 19, 1968, this Coun declared that 
the deed of trust of August, J 932 did nOI operate to settle any propeny 
D 
being pan of the taluqdari estate and governed by the Oudh Estates Act 
of 1869. 
In the present petition for review of the judgment it was contended 
that even if the settlor had no interest in the taluqdari estate under the 
ordinary Hindu law. on adoption, the non-taluqdari property vested in 
him and ~ was con1petcnt u11dcr the deed of settlement to dispose of the 
property in the manner directed by that deed. 
It \\'as also contended that 
E 
the widow of a taluqdar \\-'as not an "heir" ""·ithin the definition of th!.! 
expttssion in the Act. 
HELD : That even in the non-taluqdari estate left by the taluqdar 
which devolved upon the widow, her 2dopted son, the senior, had so long 
as the widow was alive no interest which he could transfer, alienate or 
settle. 
[433G] 
It is well settled that where prope'rty devolves upon a single heir of a 
taluqdar entered in the second list under s. 8 of the Act, there is a 
rebuttablc presumption that the non-taluqdari estate also devolves upon 
him. 
In the present case there was no reason to depart from that rule. 
Prior to the enactment of the Oudh Estates Act 1869 there was no dis-
tinction bchveen taluqdari and non·taiuqdari estate and the presumption 
merely gave effect to family custom. 
[432E-F] 
Rani Hur.ur Ara Bega1n and Anr. v. Deput,v Comm&sioner Gonda, L.R. 
65 I.A. 397 followed. 
Murtaza Husain Khan v. Mahomtd Ya<i11 Ali Khan, L.R. 43 I.A. 
269;Thakur lshri Singh v. Baldto Singh, L.R. 11 I.A. 135, referred to. 
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 380 of 
1965. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated May 23, 
Of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench in 
First 
Appeal No. 70 of 1950. 
1963 
Civil 
F 
G 
H 
, 
MOHAN SINGH v, SARAN SINGH (Shah, ],) 
429 
A 
C .. B. Agarwala, lshtiaq Ahmad Abbasi, S. Rehman and 
c. P. Lal, for the appellants. 
· 
S, P. Sinha, Mohammad Hussain and S. S. Shukla, for the 
respondents Nos. 1 and 3. 
B 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Shah, 1. By our judgment dated April 19, 1968, we passed 
the following order in this appeal : 
· 
"It will be declared that the deed of trust executed 
by Raja Bishwanath on August 29, 1932, did !lot 
opera~ .to settle any property being part of the taluq-
dari estate and governed by the Oudh Estates Act 1 of 
1869, for the purposes sirecified therein." 
The Senior Raj Kumar applied for review of judgment on the 
ground that the deed of trust dated August 29, 1932, settled pro· 
perties . non-taluqdari as well as taluqdari and the Court at the 
earlier hearing did not make any order as to the devolution of 
the non-taluqdari property. Apparently at the earlier hearing no 
argument on the matter now sought to be raised was ·advanced, 
though the hearing lasted for several days. 
We have, however, 
granted review of judgment and heard the parties on the question 
whether a difierent rule of devolution prevails in respect of pro· 
perties which. 11re non-ta/uqdari. 
We have held that on the death of Raja Surpal Singh the 
taluqdari estate of Tiloi vested in Rani Jagannath Kuar, and she 
continued. to hold the property as life owner under s. 22(7) of 
the Oudh Estates Act, even after she adopted Raja Bishwanath 
Singh on February 21, 1901, and so long as she was alive Raja 
Bishwanath Singh had no interest in the estate which he could 
settle or convey. The deed

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