LexSTATE OF U.P versus RAJ KUMAR RUKMANI RAMAN BRAHMA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A STATE OF U.P. v. RAJ KUMAR RUKMANI RAMAN BRAHMA September II, 1969 B [J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] c D E F G H U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (1 of 1951), s. 23(1) c.nd s. 19-A Gujaranama. executed by Raja of an impartible estate before passing of Act in favour of his br0ther rvhether a gift or sale within meaning of s. 23(1)-Grantee whether entitled to rehabilitation grant under s. 79. The Raja of an impartible Estate in U.P. executed certai11 Gujaranama. deeds in 1949 including one in favour of the respondent, his younger brother. After the U.P. Zamindari and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (U.P. Act 1 of 1951) came in force the 'respondent made an application before the Rehabilitation Grants Officer under s. 79 of the Act The Rehabili· tation Grants Officer held that the respondent was entitled to the Grant and the order was upheld by the higher courts including the High Court. In appeal by the State of U.P. before this Court it was contended that the Gujaranama executed by the Raia in favour of the respondent wa·s a transfer by way of sale or gift within the meaning of s. 23 (I) of the Act and therefore could not be recognised for purposes of assessing the amount of Rehabilitation Grant. HELD : (i) After the decision of the Privy Council in Shiba Prasad Singh's case it must be taken to be well-settled that an estate which is impartible by custom cannot. be said to be the separate or exclusive pfo- perty of the holder of the estati;, If the holder has got the estate as an ancestral estate and he has succeeded to it by primogeniture it will be· a pal'.t of the joint estate of the undivided Hindu family. In the ca·se of an ordinary joint family property the members of the family can~ claim four rights: (1) the right of partition: (2) the right to restrain alienations by the head of the family except for necessity; (3) the right of maintenance; and ( 4) the right of survivorship. It is obviou°" from the very nature of the property which is impartible that the first of these rights cannot exist. The second is also incompatible with the custom of impartibility. The right of maintenance and the right of sur· vivorship, however, still remain and it is by reference to these rights that the property, though impartible has, in the eye of law, to be regarded· as joint family property. The right of survivorship, l!nlike mere sµes successionis cau be surrendered. The right of maintenance to junior members out of an impartible estate is based on joint ownership of the· iunior members of the family. [361 H-362 DJ Shiba Prasad Singh v. Rani Prayag Kumar; Devi, 59 I.A. 331,. Rani Sartaj Kuari. v. Deoraj Kuari, 15 I.A. 51, First Pittapur case. 26 I.A. 83, Co/lectar of Gorakhpur v. Rar.t Sunder Mal, 61 I.A. 286 and· Baijncth Prasad Singh v. Tej Bali Singh, 48 I.A. 195, applied. Raja Yarlagadda Mallikarjuna Prasad Nayr.du v. Raja Yarlagadda Durga Prasad Nayadu, 27 I.A. 151 and Protap Chandra Deo v. Jagadish Chandra Deo, 54 ~.A. 289, refe'rred to. (ii) In the pre·sent case there was the statement of the Raja in the Gnjaranama deed that according to the law and custom of the estate the·. . 3 56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1970] 2 S.CR . .eldest son of the Raja becon1cs the owner of the e3tate on the death of the earlier Raja and that the "younger sons have right to maintenance and they arc given reasonable share of the estate in lieu of right of, maintenance. Jn vie•·' of this admission of the Raja it \Vas not Possible to hold that the transfer of the properties in the Gujaranama deed v.·as .a transfer by way of gift. It was also not a sale of the properties for there is no money consideration. lt was manifest that the transaction was by \Vay of a settlement to the respondent by the R.aja in lieu of the right of maintenance of the respondent which was obligatory upon the holder of impartible estate. The Gujaranama was therefore not hit by the pro- vision of s. 23 of the Act. [363 D-Fl (iii) The plea on behalf of the appellant that the case must be remanded to the Rehabilitation Officer because no issues were framed or evidence taken in the case hat! no force because there \Vere ·no questions of fact raised in the written statement on which evidence could be taken. 1364 A] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 748 of 1966. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated Feb
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.