Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Rani Durga Sundari died on the 28th December 1911 and the present suit was instituted on the 7th August 1912.

4. The plaint was originally one for partition with a Court-fee of Rs. 10 and was directed only against the defendants Nos. 1 toy 4, who are the representatives of the brothers of Hemoda Kant. The defendants Nos. 1 to 4 disclaimed all interests in the property, and stated that Taraf Katia Nangla was the Ranian Britti of the Ranis of the family. The defendants Nos. 6 to 9 (the Ranis) were thereupon added as parties. They pleaded that the Taraf was Rania Britti, that under a family custom the Ranis of the family successively are entitled to it, that the male members of the family have no right to the same, and that accordingly the plaintiff had acquired no title to it under the conveyance executed by Hemoda Kant. The latter (the defendant No. 5) was also made a party, and he pleaded that the claim set up by the defendants Nos. 6 to 9 that the property was held by Ranis in succession was false, that the property was obtained by his mother Rani Durga Sundari by gift from one Rani Kripamoyi (who held it in absolute right) and that on the death of Rani Durga Sundari he as her sole surviving son was entitled to the whole of the Taraf, bat that the plaintiff had not acquired any right to Katia Nangla under the conveyance executed by him in favour of Kali Prosanna Ghosh. The plaint was thereupon amended and the suit was converted into a title suit.

17. Rani Kripamoyi in her petition, dated the 4th August 1837, filed in the said proceedings stated that since a long time before the British Government the Ranis of Rajas have been in enjoyment and possession of the Ranian Brittis in many villages, especially in Taraf Katia Nangla, as revenue-free lands. The Ranis in former times had been in possession of the Brittis in view of maintenance of the Ranis, and they had been in the enjoyment of the profits. In this way the Britti having come down from one Rani to another it descended to the late Rani Annapurna, who made a gift of the entire Brit Taraf Katia Nangla and others to me as a Youtuk for my maintenance, and since then I have been holding that property as Youtuk property and I have been in undisputed enjoyment of the profits thereof. Neither the aforesaid Panda nor any other person has a single cotta of Lakhiraj land in the aforesaid Taraf."

24. Rani Kripamoyi made a gift of Katia Nangla to Rani Durga Sundari and the latter was in possession of the Taraf so long as she lived. There is a large number of documents showing her possession as not disputed.

25. After the death of Raja Baroda Kant, disputes arose between Manada Kant (the son by his third wife) and Jnanada Kant and Hemoda Kant, his sons by his wife Rani Durga Sundari. Rani Durga Sundari claimed Taraf Katia Nangla and certain other properties as her Ranian Britti, The dispute was settled by a release, dated the 17th February 1884, executed by her in favour of Manada Kant, whereby she gave up her claim to the properties other than Taraf Katia Nangla claimed by her. It was agreed that the three brothers would get the whole estate with the exception of Taraf Katia Nangla in equal shares, that Taraf Katia Nangla would remain with their consent in the possession and enjoyment of Rani Durga Sundari for her maintenance for life and for the performance of religious duties, and that the sons would not be able to claim Katia Nangla during her lifetime.

30. The learned Subordinate Judge was of opinion that the Sanad Of 1203 is consistent with other subsequent unimpeachable evidence. The Taidad of 1209 states that there was at first a gift of Taraf Katia Nangla to Rani Indra Nilmoni, and then that property was given to Rani Annapurna in 1187, whereas the Sanad of 1203 shows that the property was given to the two Ranis Annapurna and Rajeswari. The Collector's proceedings of 1816 also ihow the same thing. Then again Rani Annapurna alone mortgaged the property to Ramdhin Singh, and the petition of Mohan Singh also shows that Rani "Annapurna alone was the owner. Rani Kripatnoyi also in her petition of 1229 also sets up the previous title of Annapurna alone. Rani Rajeswari did not object to the transfer of Katia Nangla by Annapurna to Ramdhin, nor does she appear to have dealt with the property in any way although she did not die until 1244. On the other hand Rani Rajeswari was dealing with certain other properties without any reference, to Rani Annapurna. An explanation was attempted on behalf of the Rani defendants based upon the fact that there were other properties besides Taraf Katia Nangla which were given as Ranian Britti to Rani Annapurna and Rani Rajeswari, and it was suggested that by some arrangement between themselves Rani Annapurna obtained Taraf Katia Nangla, and Rani Rajeswari got other properties, and that this would explain why the Ranis were dealing with certain properties without reference to each other. The Sanad of 1203 no doubt refers to the grant of, Taraf Katia Nangla "and others" are also stated to be in Pargana Sahas. The properties dealt with by Rani Rajeswari do not appear to be situate in Pargana Sahas. That being so, the explanation is not satisfactory. Though the fact that Rani Rajeswari had some properties which she was dealing with as her Britti without reference to Rani Annapurna may suggest the possibility of other grants to the two Ranis and an agreement between them, there is no evidence to show that there was any other grant to the two Ranis. We need not, however, discuss the matter further, because, in our opinion, the genuineness of the Sanad of 1203 does not help the case of the Rani defendants. The learned Subordinate Judge was of opinion that "if this document (Sanad of 1203) be a genuine one, then the contention of the Ranis is true." But the Sanad states, "yon and the Ranis of the family shall remain in the" enjoyment and possession of the aforesaid Uritti and hold the same as Lakhiraj, you or the future Ranis shall be entitled only to enjoy the profits thereof." Now in so far as it lays down a rule of succession limited to the Ranis of the family, it is not valid. An agreement such as that laid down in the Sanad cannot alter the line of succession according to law. Its value as evidence of the family usage will be considered later on, and this brings us to the main question in the case, viz, whether any family custom or usage has been proved under which the Ranis are entitled to succeed to the Ranian Britti property Katia Nangla to the exclusion of persons who are entitled to succeed according to law.