Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

80. The Tanjore Raj was founded about the year 1674 or 1675 by Yenkaji otherwise known as Ekoji who was the half-brother of Sivaji, the founder of the Mahratta kingdom. As I shall have to refer to more than one person of that name, I shall refer to him as Sivaji the Great to avoid confusion. Shahaji, their father, married two wives. By his first wife Jeja Bai, he had two sons Sambaji and Sivaji the Great, and by his second wife Thuka Bai, he had a son Venkaji also known as Bkoji. Venkaji had three sons who succeeded to the Raj one after the other. The last son Thukaji had a son called Bkoji. He (Thukaji) had a son called Pratap Singh who is said to have been born to his sword wife Annapurni Bai. Pratap Singh reigned from 1740 to 1763 and had two sons Tulasaji and Amar Singh. Tulasaji died leaving an adopted son Serfoji and Serfoji, who reigned from 1799 to 1832, had a son Sivaji who was the last Raja of the Tanjore Dynasty, as the Bast India Company on his death in 1855 declared the Raj to be extinct and took possession of all the properties alleging an escheat. On Tulasaji's death, his brother Amar Singh disputed the adoption of Serfoji and claimed the estate. His claim was at first recognized by the East India Company and he ruled from 1787 to 1798. Subsequently the claims of Serfoji, the adopted son of Tulasaji, were recdgnized and Amar Singh was deposed. He resided in a place called Tiruvadamarudur on a pension which was assigned to him. He died leaving a son Pratap Singh. Pratap Singh adopted a son and the twelfth defendant Bhavani Bai is the widow of the adopted son, who died leaving no male issue. She claimed the estate as the nearest heir to Sivaji Maharaja on the ground that under the Mayukha which applies to the parties she was a Gotraja Sapinda entitled to succeed in preference to other collaterals. A few years after the death of Sivaji Maharaja, his eldest surviving widow Kamakshi Bai Saheba adopted Rajaram Ingle, the sister's grandson of the late Sivaji Maharaja. The first and second defendants are the sons of Rajaram Ingle. Sivaji Maharaja had two daughters Rajes Bai and Mukta Bai. Rajes Bai, the elder daughter, died without issue on the 26th of December 1856 Mukta Bai, the younger daughter, who was unmarried at the date of the Raja's death, married Sakharam Saheb. She had two sons who predeceased her. She and her husband adopted one Sambu Singh and the third defendant is the adopted son of Sambu Singh. He claims as the daughter's grandson by adoption of the late Maharaja. Sivaji Maharaja had three sisters. The first Bayamma Bai had a son Ramachandra Soorve. The seventeenth defendant is the son of Ramachandra Soorve. The twenty-third defendant is the son of the seventeenth defendant. They claim as the sister's grandsons. Sulakshana Bai, another sister of Sivaji, had a son Manoji, who died leaving a son Eswant Mohitai. Defendants Nos. 21 and 22 are the sons of Eswant Mohitai. Sakwar Bai, another sister of Sivaji, had a son Pratap Rudra Ingle. Pratap Rudra Ingle had throe sons Ramachandra, Eswant and Rajaram. As already stated, Rajaram, the youngest son, was adopted to Sivaji. Ramachandra left a son, who is the twentieth defendant. Sivaji Maharaja is alleged to have married a number of ladies referred to in the case as the Mangala Vilas ladies by a rite which is stated in the evidence to be "a sword marriage," and defendants Nos. 4 to 11 are, as already stated, either the sons or grandsons of Sivaji by six of the sword wives. Sambaji, the eldest brother of Sivaji the Great, died during the lifetime of his father Shahaji and his descendants played no part in the events that succeeded Shahaji's death. The twenty-fourth defendant claims as the descendant of Sambaji and the nearest agnatic reversioner to Sambaji. Sivaji the Great had two sons Sambaji and Rajaram. When disputes arose between Sambaji and Rajaram, the kingdom left by Sivaji was carved into two principalities, Sambaji and his descendants ruling a principality with the capital at Satara and Eajaram and his descendants ruling another principality with the capital at Kolhapur. The thirteenth and fourteenth defendants claim as the direct descendants of Sambaji to be the next heirs. The principality of Satara was declared extinct by the East India Company in 1838 and the thirteenth and fourteeth defendants are political pensioners residing in Satara and they claim to be the nearest reversionary heirs. The fifteenth defendant, who is a descendant of Rajaram, is the ruling Prince of Kolhapur and he claims as the person entitled to the Tanjore Raj. Shahaji, the father of Sivaji the Great, had an uncle Vittoji and the sixteenth defendant is the widow of one Somanath, who is said to be a direct descendant of Vittoji. Her claim is similar to that made by the twelfth defendant. Defendants Nos. 18 and 19 claim to be the grandsons of the Step-sister of the late Sivaji Maharaja.

Among the Kshatriya castes there is a form of marriage known as the sword or dagger marriage (kadga vivaha) and this prevails even now among some zamindar families. In the Jyotirvidabharanam which is supposed to be the work of Kalidasa, it is said that in the Kaliynga even a marriage without Panigrahanam is good as in the case of kings who celebrate marriages in the sword or dagger form (kadga vivaha).

138. The issues framed in the suit base the claim on custom and although defendants Nos. 4 to 11 state that it was a custom in the Royal family to which Raja Sivaji belonged and among the Mahrattas generally to have sword wives, there is no evidence that in the Royal families of Kolhapur or Satara which equally with the Royal family of Tanjore descended from the Great Sivaji, there was any. instance of a marriage known as sword marriage having ever been contracted by any of the members of the Royal family. There is no reference to any custom of sword marriage amongst the Mahrattas in the Dekhan or the Bombay Presidency in the Kolhapur, Satara or other Gazetteers published under the authority of the Government. As I said before, the only reference I can find is in Enthoven's "Castes and Tribes" and it refers to the custom amongst the Rajputs. Only one witness Vittal Rao Sahib Mohitai, the eighty-seventh witness for defendants Nos. 4 to 1), speaks to a sword marriage having been contracted by a relation of his in Bhor in the Satara district and describes the ceremonies the parties went through. Mahadeva Rao Nimbalkar, the eighty-third witness of defendants Nos. 4 to 11, speaks to his maternal grandfather having performed a sword marriage but states he can give no details of that ceremony. This evidence is totally insufficient to prove any general custom amongst the Mahrattas generally.

191. I shall now deal with the argument that even if all Mahrattas are not Kshatriyas, the Sannavagulis or the members of the 96 clans are Kshatriyas and that the Rajas of Tanjore who belong to the Bhonsle family which is one of the 96 families must necessarily be of Kshatriya descent. The term "Sannavagulis" means 96 Kuls or families. In Exhibit B-140 which is an inscription of the year 1803 it is stated that from the Solar and Lunar races rose up a Kshatriya family which consists of 96 branches. Then the 96 branches are named, the first being the Bhonsle family from which Sivaji is said to have descended. I have already pointed out that the Kunbis who form the agricultural portion of the Mahratta community are Sudras and that they also have the same divisions into 96 clans. This is clear from the extract from Mr. Enthoven's book which I have already set out in extenso and from a reference to the Satara and Kolhapur District Manuals. It is stated at page 76 of the Satara District Manual that almost all the leading tribal surnames such as Cholke, More, Povar, Shelar and Yadav are found besides among Kunbis who do not appreciably differ from Mahrattas. A large body of evidence in this case is to the effect that the Sannavagulis in Tanjore far from being Kshatriyas are Sudras. Vagoji Rao, sixteenth witness for defendants Nos. 1 and 2, who is the brother-in-law of the late Maharaja Sivaji states that there are no intermarriages between the Sahebs of the Royal family and Sannavagulis. He classes the Sannavagulis along with Appa, Akka and other divisions who are admittedly Sudras. As regards funeral ceremonies, he states that the ordinary Mahrattas make the pindam or offerings to ancestors of flour while the higher classes make it of cooked rice. Thirty-first witness for defendants Nos. 1 and 2 Savalairam Saheb Soorve who is also related to the Royal family states that all Mahrattas are not Kshatriyas, that the word "Mahratta" is a general name including Kshatriyas and some minor castes and that the latter are Sannavagulis, Satyavagulis and Mangalavilasam. The twenty-first defendant who is the great-grandson of the sister of Sivaji and who was examined as forty-sixth witness for defendants Nos. 1 and 2, states:

211. It is argued that so far as the Satara branch is concerned, the successors of Sahu were virtually prisoners, that the Peshwas were the real rulers and that it was to the interest of the Peshwas to discourage Upa-nayanam. I find it difficult to follow this argument. The Peshwas, though virtually the rulers outwardly, conformed to the theory that they were only ministers of the descendants of Sivaji who ruled at Satara. Every Peshwa sought for investiture from the king in Satara and it is difficult to see what interest the Peshwas had in preventing Upanayanam ceremony from being performed and in thus degrading the rulers, in the eyes of the people.