Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

Ry. Pratapa Simha Raja Saheb v. Ry. Simji Raja Sahib .

Madras High Court

May 5, 1926

Judgment

Subsequent
References

CaseIQ

Important Paras

Please sign up to view Important Paras.

Smart Summary (Beta)

Judicial Opinion Summary — Spencer, J.

Factual and Procedural Background

Sivaji, the last Raja of Tanjore, died in 1855 leaving multiple widows and children. The Government initially took possession of his properties, restoring the estate to the senior surviving Ranee on 21 August 1862 and making over the Devasthanams to the senior widow, Kamakshi Bai Sahiba, on 19 March 1863. On Kamakshi Bai Sahiba's death the Government again assumed control and later put the Devasthanams under the Devasthanam Committee of Tanjore District.

Umamba Bai Sahiba (then the senior surviving widow) sued and succeeded; the High Court (reported in Kaliana Sundaram Iyer v. Umamba Bhai Sahib) held that Government intended to grant a widow's estate so the senior widow should hold possession as she would have absent confiscation. Subsequent litigation followed over entitlement and management of the Devasthanams, including litigation reported in Maharaja of Kolhapur v. Sundaram Iyer and other suits between descendants including O.S. No. 26 of 1912 and O.S. No. 43 of 1913.

O.S. No. 43 of 1913, brought by representatives of the Mangala Vilas (descendants by sword wives), was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge who found the grant was to a single individual or sole trustee, passing to the head of the family. That decision was affirmed on appeal (Ayiswarya Nandaji Saheb v. Sivaji Raja Saheb). Later, one of the younger sons (the 2nd defendant in the earlier suit) instituted the present suit seeking a declaration that the two brothers (sons of an adopted son) should be declared jointly entitled to management under the will of Ranee Jijamba Bai Sahiba. This appeal arose from that litigation.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the trusteeship of the Devasthanams is an incident of the hereditary trust such that it is vested in a single (sole) trustee (the senior representative) or whether it is joint/partible between competing branches (including illegitimate descendants).
Whether an agreement filed as Ex. A(1), under which the brothers agreed to appoint a common agent and alternate as managing trustee annually, operates as a bona fide settlement binding the parties.
Whether the adoption by Kamakshi Bai Sahiba divested her widow's estate in such a way that she could acquire a prescriptive right over the trust property and devise the trusteeship by will to the two sons jointly.
Whether the Sub-Divisional First Class Magistrate's 1912 proceedings have become final under Article 47 of the Limitation Act, thereby affecting possession claims.
Whether the plaintiff is estopped from asserting a claim adverse to his brother because he assisted in the defence of a prior suit (and shared litigation expenses).
Whether the present suit is barred by res judicata because the character of the trusteeship was decided in earlier suits and appeals.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The appellant relied on an agreement (Ex. A(1)) dated 1915 in which the appellant and respondent agreed to appoint a common agent and to alternate being managing trustee year by year; the appellant urged that this agreement constituted a bona fide settlement of a disputed claim and thus bound the elder brother.
The appellant argued that the Ranee's Will (Ex. N.) bequeathed management rights jointly to the two sons and pointed to the Ranee's personal delivery of keys to both as supporting joint entitlement.
The appellant asserted that, because the plaintiff had assisted the defendant in defending the prior suit (O.S. No. 43) and shared litigation costs, the defendant (now respondent) should be estopped from claiming rights subversive of the appellant's interest.

Respondent's Arguments

The respondent (elder brother) contended there was no dispute between the brothers at the time of Ex. A(1) and that the agreement was entered into because agents/managers were disputing; thus the agreement was not a bona fide settlement of an existing dispute between the parties and cannot bind them if founded on a mutual mistake as to their rights.
The respondent asserted that he believed, incorrectly at the time, that Jijamba Bai Sahiba could devise the trusteeship by will; upon taking advice and obtaining judgment in O.S. No. 43 of 1913, he realized the mistake and acted accordingly.
The respondent relied on prior court findings (including the conclusion that sole trusteeship is an incident of the hereditary trust) to defeat claims by illegitimate children and to support his management during his lifetime.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Kaliana Sundaram Iyer v. Umamba Bhai Sahib	Government's intention to grant a widow's estate — that Kamakshi Bai Sahiba should have possession she would have enjoyed but for confiscation.	The earlier High Court conclusion that the grant to the widow created a widow's estate was relied on as background to the property being restored to the widow and as part of the historical basis for subsequent trust management issues.
Maharaja of Kolhapur v. Sundaram Iyer	Reported appellate judgments concerning the Receiver of the estate and earlier proceedings about entitlement.	Referred to as part of the chain of reported litigation and appellate decisions relevant to the Devasthanam estate's management and possession history.
Ayiswarya Nandaji Saheb v. Sivaji Raja Saheb	Confirmation that the grant was to a single trustee and that sole trusteeship was an incident of the trust.	The Court relied on its own prior finding in that appeal that sole trusteeship was a characteristic of the institution; that conclusion was treated as sufficient to dispose of the present appeal in favour of sole trusteeship.
Cooper v. Phibba	Principle that a settlement entered into under a mutual mistake as to rights will not bind the parties as a bona fide settlement.	Cited to support the proposition that if the 1915 agreement (Ex. A(1)) was entered into under a mutual mistake about entitlement, it would not bind the parties.
Deniell v. Sinclair	Similar authority on agreements and settlements affected by mutual mistake.	Used alongside Cooper v. Phibba to show that a mutual mistake regarding rights prevents the agreement from operating as a binding bona fide settlement.
Sivaji Rajah Sahib v. Aiswarya Nandaji Sahib (also cited as Aiswarya Nandaji v. Sivaji Rajah Sahib)	Considerations about possession and prior proceedings; observations on parties' possession and appointment of receiver.	Referred to in assessing the justification for any mistake by parties regarding possession and in explaining that prior possession and proceedings influenced the parties' understanding of their rights.
Article 47, Limitation Act	Finality of proceedings of Sub-Divisional First Class Magistrate where no suit is brought within one year.	Discussed in relation to whether Magistrate proceedings of 1912 became final and thereby barred claims to actual possession; the Court explained why the Article 47 point did not require a different result in the present dispute.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court proceeded through a sequence of factual and legal determinations grounded in prior decisions and the documentary record:

Historical and precedential foundation: The Court reiterated its prior conclusion (from Ayiswarya Nandaji Saheb v. Sivaji Raja Saheb and related decisions) that the founders intended the Devasthanams to be managed by a sole trustee. That finding forms the primary legal foundation for disposing of the appeal.
Effect of Ex. A(1) (the 1915 agreement): The Court considered whether Ex. A(1) was a bona fide settlement of an existing dispute. It found no evidence of a genuine dispute between the brothers regarding sole trusteeship at the time; rather, any dispute was between their agents. Because the agreement did not resolve an actual dispute between the parties themselves and may have been entered into under a mutual mistake about their rights, the agreement did not bind them as a settlement (invoking Cooper v. Phibba and Deniell v. Sinclair).
Power to alter the trust: The Court held that the parties lacked power to alter the scheme of the existing institution (the trust) by private agreement as if dealing with a mere private right. The nature of the institution and its hereditary character precluded such unilateral alteration by the parties.
Adoption, widow's estate, prescriptive rights and testamentary power: The Court analysed the contention that adoption divested the widow's estate and that the widow had acquired a prescriptive right, enabling her to devise trusteeship by will. The Court distinguished the widow's ordinary estate from the trust property given back by Government in 1863. It held the trust property created a different right and that there can be no stridhanam (a woman's proprietary right) in trust property. Consequently, the widow could not prescribe for a greater title than a woman's estate nor could she alter the natural course of devolution of the trust by will.
Article 47 and Magistrate proceedings: The Court addressed the argument that the 1912 Magistrate proceedings had become final under Article 47 of the Limitation Act because no suit was brought within one year. It accepted that a party who failed to bring a suit within limitation would be barred from raising certain questions of actual possession later, but found that there had been no necessity arising out of the Magistrate's order for the successful parties to bring a suit to determine which of them had a separate right to possession. Thus Article 47 did not change the result in favour of joint entitlement.
Estoppel based on assistance and costs: The Court rejected the contention that the plaintiff was estopped by his prior assistance and shared expenses in defending O.S. No. 43. The Court had directed in its final judgment that the costs of the two respondents be paid out of the Devasthanam estate, and therefore there was no estoppel arising from the conduct of the prior suit and appeal.
Conclusion: Given the settled finding that sole trusteeship is a characteristic of the institution, and given the failures of the alternative arguments (agreement Ex. A(1), prescriptive/devise claims, limitation and estoppel), the Court concluded that the elder son (the respondent) was entitled to management during his lifetime and that the appeal must be dismissed.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The appeal is DISMISSED.

Implications:

The Court confirmed that sole trusteeship is an incident of the hereditary trust in question; accordingly the elder son (the respondent) is confirmed in his right to manage the Devasthanams during his lifetime.
The 1915 agreement (Ex. A(1)) was not treated as a binding bona fide settlement that could override the character of the trust; the agreement did not alter the trusteeship arrangement.
The Court rejected the arguments that adoption/divestment and the widow's will established a joint trusteeship, that Article 47 of the Limitation Act altered the outcome, or that estoppel applied because costs were directed to be paid from the estate.
Costs: The appeal was dismissed with costs payable by the appellant to the respondent (the costs having been ordered in the final judgment to be paid out of the Devasthanam estate in the prior decision).
The opinion resolves the dispute between the parties as to management in favour of sole trusteeship; the judgment rests on application of prior decisions and the character of the trust rather than creating a novel rule extending beyond the facts and precedents addressed.

This summary is prepared exclusively from the content of the provided opinion. No facts or legal conclusions have been added beyond those explicitly stated in the opinion.

Show all summary ...

Spencer, J.:— Sivaji, the last Raja of Tanjore, died in 1855 leaving 16 Ranees, two legitimate daughters, a mother, 40 sword wives and 17 children by these sword wives, six of them being males. On the death of Sivaji, the Government took possession of all his properties. The estate was restored to the senior survivin Ranee on the 21st of August 1862. On the 19th of March 1863 the Government made over the Devasthanams to the senior widow in proceedings exhibited as Ex. 1 in these words;

It is desirable that the connexion of Government with the pagodas should cease, and they will accordingly be made over to Her Highness, Kamakshi Bai Sahiba.

2. On the death of Kamakshi Bai Sahiba the Government again took possession of the Devasthanams and put them in charge of the Devasthanam Committee of the Tanjore District. Upon this, Umamba Bai Sahiba, who was then the senior surviving widow, brought a suit which ended in her favour. The judgment of the High Court in appeal is reported in Kaliana Sundaram Iyer v. Umamba, Bhai Sahib(1). Justice Shephard, who wrote the leading judgment, came to the conclusion that it was the intention of Government to grant a widow's estate, i.e, to put Kamakshi Bai Sahiba in the possession which she would have enjoyed had there been no confiscation on the death of her husband, the Raja. The last surviving widow of the late Raja died on May 3, 1912. After this, the Receiver of the estate in 1912 filed an interpleader suit to decide who was entitled to take the estate. That suit was numbered O.S No. 26 of 1912 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tanjore, and the judgments in appeal of Kumaraswami Sastri, J. and myself have been reported in Maharaja of Kolhapur v. Sundaram Iyer(2). In 1913 the Mangala Vilas people, who represented the descendants of the Raja by sword wives, filed a suit O.S No. 43 of 1913, against two sons of Rajaram Ingle alias Sarfoji Raja, who was adopted on the 1st of July 1863 by Kamakshi Bai Sahiba as the adopted son of her deceased husband. O.S No. 43 of 1913 was dismissed, the Subordinate Judge observing that the Devasthanams were handed back to the family represented by Kamakshi Bai Sahiba as the head of it. He said:

The grant is to a single individual or sole trustee and there can be no claim for participation. The same will therefore pass to the head of the family for the time being. The senior Ranee acted as such in succession and on the last Ranee's death the senior representative of the family is the 1st defendant. He is therefore entitled to be the sole trustee.

3. That case came to be heard before Kumaraswami Sastri, J. and myself on appeal and our decision appears in Ayiswarya Nandaji Saheb v. Sivaji Raja Saheb(3). The appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the lower Court confirmed. In so doing, I observed that if it were necessary for the 1st defendant to prove that sole trusteeship was an incident of this hereditary trust, I should be prepared to find it proved. Kumaraswami Sastri, J., found it difficult to accept the argument for the 2nd defendant that the management should be confined to the first and second defendants by turns to the exclusion of illegimate sons. He observed:

Either the office is impartiable and descends on the eldest member of the senior line, or it should be treated as partible and turns given to all those who are entitled to share in the family properties. There is no principle on which the office could be confined to the exclusion of the Mangala Vilas branch.

4. After the Subordinate Judge had decided O.S No. 43 of 1913, on July 1, 1918 and found that the grant was to a sole trustee aud that the 1st defendant was the senior representative of the family and thus entitled to be sole trustee, the younger son, who was the 2nd defendant in that suit, instituted the present suit for a declaration that the two brothers, sons of the adopted son should be declared to be jointly entitled to the management of the Devasthanams and the properties belonging thereto, under the Will of Ranee Jijamba Bai Sahiba. The plaintiff in the present suit put in a memorandum of objections to the appeal in O.S No. 43 of 1919 in which he took the point that the lower Court was wrong in holding that the 1st defendant was the sole trustee of the Devasthanams and in adjudicating between the claims of first and second defendants inter se. When we disposed of the appeal in that suit, we dismissed the memorandum of objections of the second respondent. The present suit being instituted to obtain a declaration as to the character of the trusteeship which was decided in a prior suit and appeal, it is urged for the respondent that the matter is res-judicata and that the suit must fail on that ground alone.

5. When we held in Appeal No. 64 of 1920 that sole trusteeship was one of the incidents of this trust, we were not adjudicating upon the claims of the 1st and 2nd defendants in that suit inter se. The finding that sole trusteeship was an incident of the institution was held sufficient to defeat the claim of the illegitimate children. No doubt, the memorandum of objections was dismissed. But in that suit the present plaintiff and the defendant were ranged on the same side, and on this account I should not be prepared ??? one of them the right to prove his individual case against his brother if he has materials upon which he may establish that the right of trusteeship is joint and not single.

6. A material piece of evidence which was not considered by us in that appeal is an agreement filed as Ex. A(1) in which the appellant and the respondent in 1915 mutually agreed to appoint a common agent to manage the Devasthanams and that they should each take it in turns to be the managing trustee for one year at a time.

7. For the appellant it is now urged that this agreement constituted a bona fide settlement of a disputed claim and that the elder brother, who is the respondent in the appeal, is bound thereby. In his oral evidence the respondent staged that himself and his brother ware on good terms at the time of the agreement and that there was no dispute between them, but he entered into the agreement because their agents or managers ware disputing and he personally was under the mistaken impression that Jijamba Bai Sahiba had a right to devise the trusteeship by Will aud that when he understood that he was labouring under a mistake, he took legal advice and rail the judgment of the Subordinate Judge in O.S No. 43 of 1913. His brother, the appellant, gives a somewhat different account. He states that the object of the agreement was to avoid misunderstandings between the respondent and himself. But his second witness deposes that there were no disputes or misunderstandings between the parties and that the disputes were between their agents. If the parties were acting under a mutual mistake as to what their rights were, thinking that they were jointly entitled to the management of the Devasthanams, they will not be bound by such an agreement: vide Cooper v. Phibba(4) and Deniell v. Sinclair(5).

8. I am of opinion in the first place that R. A(1) does not purport to be a bona fide settlement of an existing dispute between the parties to it as there was no dispute then as to which of the brothers should be the sole trustee in the event of its being found that sole trusteeship was a characteristic feature of the trust, and secondly I think that the parties had no power to alter the scheme of the institution at their own will and pleasure as if they were settling some private right: see the observations in Aiswarya Nandaji v. Sivaji Rajah Sahib. In Sivaji Rajah Sahib v. Aiswarya Nandaji Sahib(6) this Court decided in appeal relating to proceedings between the Mangala Vilas people and the present appellant and respondent as regards the appointment of a Receiver for the Devasthanam property. At that time it was considered that, rightly or wrongly, the two sons of the adopted son were in possession of the Devastbanam property, both parties assuming that they were rightly in possession. If, therefore, the respondent was mistaken his mistake was not without justification.

9. In the hearing of this appeal. I have been shown no reason for departing from my conclusion in the prior appeal that the Rajas of Tanjore who founded these religious institutions intended that they should be managed by a sole trustee. That conclusion is sufficient to dispose of the present appeal and to confirm the right of the elder son, who is the respondent, in his management during his lifetime. But one or two minor points have been raised which may be briefly disposed of.

10. It was argued that the adoption by Kamakshi Bai Sahiba of the father of the parties divested the widow of her estate and vested it in the adopted son, and that this widow having continued nevertheless to manage the estate, acquired a prescriptive right against the adopted son which she was entitled to devise by will. In her Will (Ex. N.) she bequeathed her right of management of the trust to both the sons of the adopted son jointly and she personally delivered over the keys to them both.

11. The Hindu Law of divestment of a widow's estate by an adopted son applies to the property that she inherits from her husband. The trust property, which Government gave back to her by the Igrant of 1863, in order that she should manage it as head of the family for the time being, created a right which was different from the right of a widow who enjoys a property for her lifetime after the death of her husband. In this view she acquired no prescriptive right by managing the property. There can be no stridhanam right in trust property and nothing during her management happened to destroy the institution of sole trusteeship, nor could the usage of the institution be altered by mere custom for one or two generations. Moreover by her enjoyment as widow of the last male owner she could not prescribe for anything higher than a woman's estate. Lastly she has no power to alter by Will the natural course of devolution of a trust already in existence.

12. Then it was urged that the proceedings of the Sub-Divisional First Class Magistrate in 1912 have become final under Article 47 of the Limitation Act as no suit was brought to establish the right of the defendant within one year. The Magistrate's order confirmed the possession of the two parties in this appeal until evicted in due course of law, on his finding that they should be considered to be in actual possession, and the proceedings were instituted by one of the sword wives sons and ended unfavourably to him. No doubt, as he did not bring a suit within the limitation period he would have been barred from raising the question of actual possession after the period of limitation. But there, was no necessity arising out of that order for the two successful parties to bring a suit to declare which of the two was entitled to a separate right of possession.

13. It is then suggested that the plaintiff in this suit, having assisted the defendant to defend the suit filed by the sword wives' sons (O.S No. 43) and having shared the expenses of that litigation, the latter is estopped from now claiming a right subversive of his brother's interest. In our final judgment in the appeal we directed that the costs of the two respondents should be paid out of the Devasthanam estate. There is thus, no question of estoppel arising out of the conduct of the prior suit and appeal, and this contention fails. The result is that the appeal is dismissed with costs of the respondent payable by the appellant.

14. Appeal dismissed.