TMI Blog1911 (3) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same in each case. 2. The plaintiffs claim as next reversioners to their grandfather (mother's father) Raja Daulat Singh to recover possession of certain properties held by the defendants, on the allegation that the deed of compromise under which the latter purport to derive title is not binding on them. The defendants, on the other hand, are transferees from one Raja Khairati Lall, a grandson by a daughter of Raja Ratan Singh, the father of Daulat Singh, and a party to the compromise in question. 3. The history of Ratan Singh's family and the circumstances which led to the compromise have been twice before this Board (1882) L.R. 1 I.A. 157 : L.R 20 I.A. 104, and will be found summarized in the earlier of the two cases. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, an allowance of ₹ 500 a month. The rights of Daulat's heirs do not appear to have been admitted to any part of the property, as no allowance was made to them, and, in fact, it is alleged, they were referred to the Civil Courts for the establishment of their rights. Matters remained in this condition for several years. Sen Kunwar died in 1857 and Raj Kunwar, Ratan's widow, the following year. In 1860, under the advice of Mr. John Inglis, a well-known District Officer, then Collector of Bareilly, the daughters of Daulat and the grandson of Ratan, Khairati Lall, entered into the compromise which the plaintiffs now seek to set aside so far as it affects them. 7. By this compromise Daulat Singh's daughters, Chhattar Kunw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iffs rely, could not be enforced, and that, therefore, there was no divestment of the right of Ratan in respect of his half share, and that even if any such right, as the plaintiffs allege, devolved on Daulat in consequence of Ratan's conversion in 1845 it became extinguished on the lapse of twelve years from the date of such devolution. 9. The Subordinate Judge in a well-considered judgment upheld the defendant's pleas and dismissed the suits. The learned Judges of the High Court, on appeal by the plaintiffs, arrived at a different conclusion. They were of opinion that on the conversion of Ratan Singh, Daulat became sole and absolute owner of the whole estate, inasmuch as Regulation VII. of 1832 did not abrogate the Hindu L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty to which, but for the operation of such laws, they would have been entitled. 12. Act XXI. of 1850 extended the principle of Section 9, Regulation VII. of 1832, of the Bengal Code, throughout the territories subject to the government of the East India Company. After reciting the provisions of Section 9, and stating that it would be beneficial to extend its principle to the rest of British India it enacted that-- So much of any law or usage now in force within the territories subject to the Government of the East India Company, as inflicts on any parson forfeiture of rights or property, or may be held in any way to impair or affect any right of inheritance, by reason of his or her renouncing, or having been excluded from the communio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lve years from the time the cause of action arose (Section 12, Act XIV of 1859). Nothing in Article 142 of Act IX of 1871 or of Article 141 of Act XV of 1877 could lead to the revival of a right that had already become barred. In this connection their Lordships would refer to the judgment of this Committee in the case of Hurrinath Chatterji v. Mohunt Mothoor Mohun Goswami (1898) L.R. 20 I.A. 183 where it was pointed out that the intention of the law of limitation is, not to give a right where there is not one, but to interpose a bar after a certain period to a suit to enforce an existing right. 16. Such was the relative position of the parties in 1860, when the compromise was entered into. The heirs of Daulat had no existing enforcea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers of Daulat, for theft compromise to use their Lordships' language in Rani Mewa Kunwar v. Rani Hulas Kunwar (1874) L. R.1 I.A. 166, is based on the assumption that there was an antecedent title of some kind in the parties, and the agreement acknowledges and defines what that title is. 18. In their Lordships' judgment the decisions on the authority of which the learned Judges of the High Court have held the compromise not to bind the plaintiffs, are not applicable to the present case. 19. On the whole their Lordships are of opinion that the judgment and decrees of the High Court of Allahabad should be reversed and those of the Subordinate Judge restored, and they will humbly advise His Majesty accordingly. 20. The re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
