| Citation | 1964 2 SCR 403 |
| Date of judgement | 19 March, 1963 |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case type | Civil |
| Plaintiff | Mirza Raja Shri Pushavathi |
| Defendant | Shri Pushavathi Visweswar . |
| Bench | J Shah, M Hidayatullah, P Gajendragadkar |
| Referred | Madras Impartible Estates Act, 1904 |
FACTS OF THE CASE
A partition suit was filed by Viziaram Gajapathi Raj II against his younger brother Visweswar Gajapathi Raj, his mother Vidyavathi Devi, his uncle Sir Vijayanand Gajapathi Raj, and his grandmother Lalitha Kumari Devi. The case revolves around the Vizianagram family, which owns a large estate that is impartible (indivisible) and passed down through primogeniture.Ananda Gajapathi Raj had a son named Chitti Babu, who was subsequently adopted by Ananda Gajapathi Raj’s mother, Alak Rajeswari I. Upon Chitti Babu’s adoption, he became the adoptive brother of Ananda Gajapathi Raj and was named as the beneficiary of his will. Various events occur, including the death of Alak Rajeswari I, the Maharani of Rewa, and the passing of the Vizianagram Estate and other properties to Alak Narayana, the son of Chitti Babu. The estate came under the management of the Court of Wards in 1935 until it was handed over to Alak Narayana’s son, Viziaram Gajapathi Raj, in 1946. This led to the filing of a partition suit in the High Court of Madras by Viziaram Gajapathi Raj to divide the joint family properties.
ISSUE RAISED
- Whether certain immovable properties acquired after the original grant and incorporated into the estate should be considered impartible, along with the original estate ?
- Whether division of Partible Properties should be made by the court?
ARGUMENTS
The plaintiff argued that certain immovable properties acquired after the original grant were incorporated into the ancestral estate by the holder for the time being. These properties should be considered impartial, similar to the original estate, and not subject to division among the family members.while the partible properties should be divided among the family members as per the preliminary decree, the impartible properties, including the acquired properties, should remain undivided and be inherited by the rightful heir according to primogeniture.
The Defendant argued that all the jewels, including those categorised as regalia, should be subject to division among the family members as part of the joint family property. Regalia designation is subjective and that all the jewels should be treated equally for the purposes of partition. The subsequent acquisitions were separate and distinct from the ancestral estate and should be treated as partible properties subject to division among the family members.
JUDGEMENT
The plaintiff, defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 were each entitled to 1/3rd share in the particle properties of the joint family of which they were members along with the deceased Alak Narayana. As the law then stood, defendant No. 2 was not entitled to any share in the agricultural properties of the family.The trust deed executed by Chitti Babu is examined, and it is concluded that it does not support the theory of incorporation . Therefore, the court does not think that the argument based on the trust deed executed by Chitti Babu really supports the plaintiff’s case that the buildings in question had been incorporated by Chitti Babu with the impartible Zamindari estate. The plaintiff’s appeals fail and are dismissed.
References
This Article is Written By Sharlika Chavan from ILS law college, Pune. Intern at Legal Vidhia
0 Comments