LexSINGHAI AJIT KUMAR & ANOTHER versus UJAYARSINGH AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
L .. I S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 347 is meant for charity and does not include per- sonal inams burdened with service, is correct. Such inams would continue to be dealt with under B.S.O. 54,, class (b) as introduced by the amendment to that Order. In this view, there is no force in this appeal and it is hereby dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. SINGHAI AJIT KUMAR & ANOTHER v. UJAYARSINGH AND OTHERS (K. SUBBA RAO and RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.) Hindu Law-Sudras-Inheritence-Self-acquired property of father-Illegitimate son and widow inheriting half share each- Widow dying-Illegitimate son, if entitled to succeed to widow's half. A Sudra Hindu died leaving two widows and an illegitimate son by a continuously and exclusively kept concubine. The son succeeded to a moiety of the estate and the widows succeeded to the other moiety. The widows died without leaving any daughter or daughter's son. The reversioners filed a suit for recovery of possession of the estate. The illegitimate son contended that on the death of his father he was entitled to succeed to half the estate the other going to the widows and that on the death of the widows he was entitled to the half share held by them. Held, that the illegitimate son succeeded to half the estate upon the death of the father and succeeded to the other half on the death of the widows. An illegitimate son has the status of a son under the Hindu Law; but he has no rights by birth and cannot claim partition during his father's lifetime. On the father's death he takes his father's self-acquired property along with the legitimate son and in case the legitimate son dies, he takes the entire property by survivorship. If there is no legiti- mate son, he would be entitled only to a half share when there is a widow, daughter or daughter's son of the last male holder. In the absence of any one of these three heirs, he succeeds to the entire state. If the widow succeeds to half the estate, upon her death succession again opens to half the estate of the last male P. V. BheeJnsena Rao v. Sirigiri Pidda Yella Reddi & Others Wanchoo ]. MaYch z6. 348 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] r961 holder held by her and the illegitimate son, who has the status of a son, bas a preferential claim over all other reversioners. Singhai Ajit Raja Jogendra Bhupati Hurri Chundun Mahapatra v. Nitya- Kumar & Another nund Mansingh, (18qo) L.R. 17 I.A. 128, Kamulammal v. v. Visvanathaswami Naicker, (1922) L.R. 50 I.A. 32 and Vallaiyappa Ujayarsingh Chetty v. Natarajan, (1931) I.L.R. 55 Mad. l, referred to. ~ Others Karuppayee Ammal v. Ramaswami, (1932) I.L.R. 55 Mad. 856, distinguished. Bhagwantrao v. Punjaram, I.L.R. 1938 Nag. 255, approved. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 462 of 1957. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated April 18, 1952, of the former Nagpur High Court in First Appeal No. 88 of 1942. 0. B. Agarwala and K. P. Gupta, for the appellant No. 1. Har Dayal Hardy and N. N. Keswani, for respon- dent No. 1. 1961. March 16. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Subba Rao J. SUBBA RAO, J.-This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and decree of the High of Judicature at Nagpur confirming the judgment of the 2nd Additional District Judge, J aha! pur, in Civil Suit No. 9-A of 1942, filed by respondents 2 to 7 here- in claiming to be the reversioners of the estate of one Raja Ajitsingh. Ajit Singh was the. Raja of Saliya Estate consisting of 73 villages and other property situate in J abalpur and Saugor Districts. Ajit Singh died on January 2, 1910, leaving behind him two widows named Rani Khuman Kuar and Rani Anant Kuar and an illegitimate son 'named Ramraghuraj Singh. Rani Anant Kuar died in or about 1914 and Rani Khuman Kuar passed away on February 1, 1922. After the death of Raja Ajit Singh, the Estate was taken over by the Court of Wards on behalf of the widows in the year 1913 and remained in its posses- sion till March 27, 1923. After the death of Rani Khuman Kuar, the local Government issued a notifi- cation recognizing Ramraghuraj Singh as the succes- sor to the Estate; but, for one reason or other, the • , . , 1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 349 Court of Wards continued to manage the Estate on i96r his behalf from September 23, 1923. Ramraghuraj 5 . h . A .. Singh died on April 23, 1932, and on hi~ death the Ku~~;;: A~;:her first respondent, the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.