TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court rules on interpretation of 'putrapoutradi' in jaigir grant, favors male descendants.</h1> <h3>Sri Sri Maharaja Ram Narayan Singh Versus Ram Saran Lal</h3> The Bombay High Court upheld the Subordinate Judge's decree, ruling that the term 'putrapoutradi' in a grant of jaigir did not extend to collateral or ... - Issues:Interpretation of the term 'putrapoutradi' in a grant of jaigir, Whether the grant of jaigir created an estate of inheritance, Custom of resumption of jaigirs on failure of male heirs in Raj Ramgarh.Analysis:1. The appeal involved a dispute over the interpretation of the term 'putrapoutradi' in a grant of jaigir and whether it included collateral or female heirs. The plaintiff claimed that the term referred to male descendants in the male line only, while the defendants argued that it extended to collaterals. The Subordinate Judge held that in Chhota Nagpur, the term putrapoutradi in a grant of jaigir did not include collateral or female heirs, based on extensive documentary and oral evidence presented during the trial.2. The Subordinate Judge also considered the custom prevailing in Raj Ramgarh, where all jaigirs were deemed resumable on the failure of male heirs in the male line of the original grantees. Citing previous judgments and historical accounts, the Subordinate Judge concluded that the term putrapoutradi should be interpreted to mean lineal male descendants only, in line with the established custom in the region.3. The High Court at Calcutta, however, overturned the Subordinate Judge's decision, holding that the term putrapoutradi, when used in conjunction with a grant of jaigir, conveyed an estate of inheritance that could descend to collaterals of the grantee. The High Court relied on previous legal precedents involving the interpretation of similar terms in Bengali wills to support their decision.4. Upon further appeal to the Bombay High Court, the judges disagreed with the interpretation of the High Court at Calcutta. They opined that the term putrapoutradi, standing alone in the context of a jaigir grant, was ambiguous and did not clearly indicate an estate of inheritance extending to collaterals. The judges emphasized the importance of considering the specific customs and practices of the region, noting that in Raj Ramgarh, jaigirs had historically reverted to male descendants in the male line.5. Ultimately, the Bombay High Court upheld the Subordinate Judge's decree, reinstating the original judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The High Court ruled that the Subordinate Judge's decision was justified based on the evidence presented regarding the custom of resumption of jaigirs on the failure of male heirs in Raj Ramgarh. The High Court set aside the decision of the Calcutta High Court and ordered the respondents to pay the costs of the appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
