SMT. MITHLESH KUMARI AND ANR. versus THAKUR SHEO SARAN SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 287 · Decided: 09-07-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

SMT. MITHLESH KUMAR! AND ANR. 
v. 
THAKUR SHEO SARAN SINGH AND ORS. 
JULY 9, 1996 
[M.M. PUNCHHI AND MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.] 
Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Section 11-Res judicata-P1inciple-Ap-
plicability of 
A 
B 
An estate known as Partapner Raj, at a point of time was owned by C 
Raja S. The estate known to be an impartible one was governed by the rule 
of lineal primogeniture. The Raja had five sons, Rs, HS, MS, AS and Ras. 
The estate after the death of Raja S descended in the line of the eldest 
son, RS and then downwards for generations upto Raja HS. Raja HS died 
in 1925, leaving behind a mother Rani B, a step mother by the name Rani 
Rand an adopted minor son, Raja M. Raja M was taken to have succeeded D 
to the Partapner Raj. He was killed while unmarried and a minor. On the 
demise of Raja M, disputes about succession to the Partapner Raj estate 
arose. One SS from the junior branch, filed a suit for declaration asserting 
that the Raj was governed by the rule of primogeniture, and since he was 
the senior 'most male member of the senior branch of the family of Raja E 
M, he was entitled to its succession. Rani B pleaded that the estate was 
not impartible and hence not subject to the rule of primogeniture, claiming 
that the entire estate was governed by Hindu Law in the matter of succes-
sion. 
VS of the junior branch staked his claim to be the closest and the F 
nearest heir under Hindu Law to the estate of Raja M, and not S. KS of 
the Senior Branch contested the suit on the ground that SS as well as VS 
being in the jnnior branch were not entitled to succeed and since he was 
in the senior branch and the estate being impartible, governed by the rule 
of lineal primogeniture, he was entitled to succeed in preference to others. G 
The trial court held that properties mentioned in Lists A and C 
constituted the impartible Partapner Raj, governed by the rule of 
primogeniture and that KS, defendant, and not SS, plaintiff, was the senior 
most member of the senior branch of the family and hence KS was entitled 
to succeed to the Raj properties; that properties mentioned in lists B and H 
287 
288 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A D did not form part of the Raj and were thus susceptible of governance by 
Hindu La\v in matters of succession and those devolved on Rani B, the 
adoptive grand mother of Raja M. Rani B died during the pendency of 
these consolidated appeals, and therefore, the appeal tiled by her was 
dismissed having abated. The other two appeals, namely of SPS of the 
B junior branch and KS of the senior branch were dismissed on their 
respective merit. 
The High Court held that since by will, Raja H had gifted his entire 
property to his adopted son, Raja M, the erstwhile Raj Properties, by that 
fact itself, lost their character as impartible estate became the self ac-
C quired properties of Raja M, and the same passed on under Hindu Law 
to his adoptive grand mother, Rani I! and that the suit of SPS remained 
dismissed ancl the advantage gained by KS in the trial Court, of his 
succeeding to Lists A and C properties on the basis of the rule of 
primogeniture, was lost. The appeals tiled by SPS and KS to the Privy 
D Council against the decision of the High Cour~ were allowed in part. The 
Privy Council reversed the finding of the High Court regarding the effect 
of the Will of Raja H, in changing the character of the properties, holding 
that properties in Lists A and C continued to constitute the impartible Raj 
while properties in Lists B and ll continued to be held as self acquired 
properties of Raja M, governed by the Hindu Law of succession. It was 
E further held that KS was the senior most male member of the senior 
branch of the family and was entitled to succeed to the partapner Raj and 
that SPS (SS, being his predecessor) was not entitled to the Raj properties 
being in the junior branch of the family. 
F 
VS filed a suit for declaration which was partially decreed in respect 
of the properties mentioned in Lists B and D and Items 5 to 7 of List E 
Part II and dismissed with regard to the properties mentioned in Lists A 
and C as well as relating to the remaining items in List E. VS and KS tiled 
first Appeal. The High Court partly on the basis of res judicata and partly 
G on the basis of concessions made by counsel before the trial court, con· 
eluded that KS could not lay any claim to properties which were self 
acquired properties in the hands of Raja M and l

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