{"id":9090,"date":"1961-03-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1961-03-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/singhal-ajit-kumar-another-vs-ujayarsingh-and-others-on-16-march-1961"},"modified":"2018-07-25T00:18:11","modified_gmt":"2018-07-24T18:48:11","slug":"singhal-ajit-kumar-another-vs-ujayarsingh-and-others-on-16-march-1961","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/singhal-ajit-kumar-another-vs-ujayarsingh-and-others-on-16-march-1961","title":{"rendered":"Singhal Ajit Kumar & Another vs Ujayarsingh And Others on 16 March, 1961"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Singhal Ajit Kumar & Another vs Ujayarsingh And Others on 16 March, 1961<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR 1334, \t\t 1962 SCR (1) 347<\/div>\n
Author: K Subbarao<\/div>\n
Bench: Subbarao, K.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSINGHAL AJIT KUMAR & ANOTHER\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUJAYARSINGH AND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n16\/03\/1961\n\nBENCH:\nSUBBARAO, K.\nBENCH:\nSUBBARAO, K.\nDAYAL, RAGHUBAR\n\nCITATION:\n 1961 AIR 1334\t\t  1962 SCR  (1) 347\n\n\nACT:\nHindu\tLaw-Sudras-Inheritence-Self-acquired   Property\t  of\nfather-Illegitimate  son  and widow  inheriting\t half  share\neach--Widow  dying-Illegitimate son, if entitled to  succeed\nto widow's half.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nA  Sudra Hindu died leaving two widows and  an\tillegitimate\nson  by a continuously and exclusively kept concubine.\t The\nson  succeeded\tto  a moiety of the estate  and\t the  widows\nsucceeded  to  the other moiety.  The  widows  died  without\nleaving\t any daughter or daughter's son.   The\treversioners\nfiled a suit for recovery of possession of the estate.\t The\nillegitimate  son contended that on the death of his  father\nhe  was\t entitled to succeed to half the  estate  the  other\ngoing  to the widows and that on the death of the widows  he\nwas entitled to the half share held by them.\nHeld, that the illegitimate son succeeded to half the estate\nupon the death of the father and succeeded to the other half\non  the\t death of the widows.  An illegitimate son  has\t the\nstatus of a son under the Hindu Law; but he has no rights by\nbirth  and  cannot  claim  partition  during  his   father's\nlifetime.  On the father's death he takes his father's self-\nacquired property along with the legitimate son and in\tcase\nthe  legitimate\t son dies, he takes the entire\tproperty  by\nsurvivorship.\tIf there is no legitimate son, he  would  be\nentitled  only\tto  a  half share when\tthere  is  a  widow,\ndaughter ox daughter's son of the last male holder.  In\t the\nabsence of any one of these three heirs, he succeeds to\t the\nentire\tstate.\t If the widow succeeds to half\tthe  estate,\nupon her death succession again opens to half the estate  of\nthe last male\n348\nholder\theld  by her and the illegitimate son, who  has\t the\nstatus\tof  a son, has a preferential claim over  all  other\nreversioners.\nRaja jogendra Bhupati Hurri Chundun Mahapatra v.  Nityarnund\nMansingh,   (1890)   L.R.  17  I.A.   128,   Kamulammal\t  v.\nVisvanathaswami\t  Naicker,  (1922)  L.R.  50  I.A.  32\t and\nVallaiyappa  Chetty v. Natarajan, (1931) I.L.R. 55  Mad.  1,\nreferred to.\nKaruppayee  Ammal v. Ramaswami, (1932) I.L.R. 55  Mad.\t856,\ndistinguished.\nBhagwantrao v. Punjaram, I.L.R. 1938 Nag. 255, approved.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 462 of 1957.
\nAppeal\tby special leave from the judgment and decree  dated
\nApril  18,1952,\t of the former Nagpur High  Court  in  First
\nAppeal No. 88 of 1942.\n<\/p>\n
C.B. Agarwala and K. P. Gupta, for the appellant No. 1.
\nHar Dayal Hardy and N. N. Keswani, for respondent No. 1.
\n1961.  March 16.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nSUBBA  RAO,  J.-This  appeal by special\t leave\tis  directed
\nagainst the judgment and decree of the High of Judicature at
\nNagpur\tconfirming  the\t judgment  of  the  2nd\t  Additional
\nDistrict  Judge,  Jabalpur in Civil Suit No.  9-A  of  1942,
\nfiled  by  respondents\t2 to 7 herein  claiming\t to  be\t the
\nreversioners  of  the estate of one  Raja  Ajitsingh.\tAjit
\nSingh  was  the\t Raja  of Saliya  Estate  consisting  of  73
\nvillages  and other property situate in Jabalpur and  Saugor
\nDistricts.   Ajit  Singh died on January  2,  1910,  leaving
\nbehind him two widows named Rani Khuman Kuar and Rani  Anant
\nKuar and an illegitimate son named Ramraghuraj Singh.\tRani
\nAnant Kuar died in or about 1914 and Rani Khuman Kuar passed
\naway  on  February 1, 1922.  After the death  of  Raja\tAjit
\nSingh,\tthe Estate was taken over by the Court of  Wards  on
\nbehalf\tof the widows in the year 1913 and remained  in\t its
\npossession  till  March 27, 1923.  After the death  of\tRani
\nKhuman\tKuar,  the local Government  issued  a\tnotification
\nrecognizing  Ramraghuraj  Singh\t as  the  successor  to\t the
\nEstate; but, for one reason or other, the
\n349<\/span>
\nCourt of Wards continued to manage the Estate on his  behalf
\nfrom  September 23, 1923.  Ramraghuraj Singh died  on  April
\n23, 1932, and on his death the, first respondent, the son of
\nRamraghuraj Singh, was, declared as the ward of the Court of
\nWards  which  continued to manage the Estate on\t his  behalf
\nRespondents  2 to 6, claiming to be the reversioners to\t the
\nEstate\tof Raja Ajit Singh, filed a suit on June  15,  1935,
\nfor recovery of possession of the Estate.  Appellants 1\t and
\n2  are\talleged\t to be the assignees pendente  lite  of\t the
\ninterest of the alleged reversioners.\n<\/p>\n
The plaintiffs averred that RamraLhurai Singh was the son of
\none  Jhutti by her husband one Sukhai and that as Raja\tAjit
\nSingh  had  no issue, he and the Ranies treated the  boy  as
\ntheir son, that the Lodhi community to which Raja Ajit Singh
\nbelonged was not a sudra caste and that, therefore, even  if
\nRamraghuraj  Singh  was the illegitimate son  of  Raja\tAjit
\nSingh, he was not entitled to a share, and that in any\tview
\nhalf of the share of the widows in the Estate would devolve,
\non their death, on the reversioners to the exclusion of\t the
\nillegitimate son.  They further pleaded that the  possession
\nof  the Court of Wards of the entire Estate from January  2,
\n1910  to February 1, 1922, was adverse to  the\tillegitimate
\nson  and, therefore, he lost his title, if any, to the\tsaid
\nEstate.\t The case of the first respondent was that Raja Ajit
\nSingh  belonged to the sudra caste, that  Ramraghuraj  Singh
\nwas  the  son  of  the\tsaid  Raja  by\ta  continuously\t and
\nexclusively kept concubine named Raj Dulari, that the widows
\nnever  questioned the right of Ramraghuraj Singh to a  share
\nin the property of Raja Ajit Singh, that therefore there was
\nno scope for the plea of adverse possession, and that, after
\nthe  death  of the widows, the succession to the  Estate  of
\nRaja Ajit Singh in respect of one half share opened out\t and
\nthe  illegitimate son, he being the nearest heir,  succeeded
\nto that share also.\n<\/p>\n
The trial court as well as the High Court concurrently\tgave
\nthe following findings: (1) Raja Ajit Singh belonged to\t the
\nsudra  caste;  (2) Raja Raghuraj Singh was the son  of\tRaja
\nAjit Singh by a continuously and
\n350<\/span>
\nexclusively  kept  concubine  by name Raj  Dulari,  who\t had
\npassed\tinto  the coneubinage of Raja Ajit Singh  after\t the
\ndeath  of her husband; (3) as the illegitimate son  of\tRaja
\nAjit  Singh, Ramraghuraj Singh succeeded to a moiety of\t the
\nEstate\tof  his putative father and the two widows  of\tRaja
\nAjit Singh succeeded to the other moiety of his Estate;\t (4)
\nas there was no daughter or daughter’s son, after the  death
\nof  the widows, Ramraghuraj Singh, being the sole  surviving
\nheir  of  his  putative father, inherited a  moiety  of\t the
\nEstate\twhich was held by the widows during their  lifetime;
\n(5)  Ramraghuraj Singh was all along in joint possession  of
\nthe Estate with the widows, and, although the Court of Wards
\nhad assumed superintendence on behalf of the Ranies, he\t was
\nnot out of possession during their lifetime and as such\t his
\ntitle  could not be extinguished by adverse possession;\t (6)
\nthe  plaintiffs’ suit was barred under s. 26 of the  Central
\nProvinces Court of Wards Act; and (7) the plaintiffs’  claim
\nwas barred by limitation.\n<\/p>\n
While the trial court held that it had not been\t established
\nthat  the  plaintiffs  were the reversioners  of  Raja\tAjit
\nSingh, the High Court held that it had been proved.  In\t the
\nresult\tthe trial court dismissed the suit and,\t on  appeal,
\nthe High Court confirmed it.\n<\/p>\n
The  2nd appellant died and his legal  representatives\twere
\nnot  brought  on  record and the appeal so far\tas  the\t 2nd
\nappellant is concerned has abated.  The 1st appellant  alone
\nproceeded with the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
It  is\tthe  usual  practice of this  Court  to\t accept\t the
\nconcurrent  findings  of  the courts below.   There  are  no
\nexceptional circumstances in this case, at any rate none was
\nbrought to our notice, to compel us to depart from the usual
\npractice.   We, therefore, accept the  concurrent  findings,
\nnamely, that Raja Ajit Singh was a member of the sudra caste
\nand that Ramraghuraj Singh was the son of Raja Ajit Singh by
\na  continuously\t and exclusively kept  concubine  named\t Raj
\nDulari,\t who passed into his concubinage after the death  of
\nher husband.\n<\/p>\n
The  main question that arises in this appeal is whether  an
\nillegitimate  son  of  a  sudra\t vis-a-vis  his-selfacquired
\nproperty, after having succeeded to a half
\n351<\/span>
\nshare  of his putative father’s estate, will be entitled  to
\nsucceed to the other half share got by the widow, after\t the
\nsuccession  opened out to his putative father  on  the death
\nof the said widow.  The answer to the question depends\tupon
\nthe  content of the right of an illegitimate son to  succeed
\nto  the self-acquired property of his putative father.\t The
\nsource\tof  his\t right is found in the\trelevant  Hindu\t Law
\ntexts.\t Mitakshara in explanation of the texts of Manu\t and
\nYajnavalkya says in Chapter 1, s. 12, in the following three
\nverses thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “1.  The author next delivers a  special\trule
\n\t      concerning  the partition of a Sudra’s  goods.
\n\t      ‘Even  a son begotten by a Sudra on  a  female
\n\t      slave may take a share by the father’s choice.
\n\t      But,  if\tthe  father be\tdead,  the  brethren
\n\t      should  make him partaker of the moiety  of  a
\n\t      share:  and  one,\t who has  no  brothers,\t may
\n\t      inherit  the  whole property,  in\t default  of
\n\t      daughter’s sons’.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      2.The son, begotten by a Sudra on a female
\n\t      slave, obtains a share by the father’s choice,
\n\t      or at his pleasure.  But, after the demise  of
\n\t      the father, if there be sons of a wedded wife,
\n\t      let these brothers allow the son of the female
\n\t      slave  to participate for half a\tshare:\tthat
\n\t      is,  let them give him half as much as is\t the
\n\t      amount  of one brother’s allotment.   However,
\n\t      should there be no sons of a wedded wife,\t the
\n\t      son  of  the  female  slave  takes  the  whole
\n\t      estate,  provided there be no daughters  of  a
\n\t      wife, nor sons of daughters.  But, if there be
\n\t      such the son of the female slave\tparticipates
\n\t      for half a share only.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      3.From  the  mention of a\t Sudra\tin  this
\n\t      place  it follows that the son begotten  by  a
\n\t      man  of a regenerate tribe on a female  slave,
\n\t      does  not obtain a share even by the  father’s
\n\t      choice, nor the whole estate after his demise.
\n\t      But,  if\the be docile, he receives  a  simple
\n\t      maintenance.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      No  mention of a widow is found in  the  above
\n\t      verses,  but in Dattaka Chandrika, the  author
\n\t      says in V. 30,31 thus:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “If  any, even in the series of heirs down  to
\n\t      the
\n\t      352<\/span>
\n\t      daughter’s  son,\texist, the son by  a  female
\n\t      slave  does not take the whole estate, but  on
\n\t      the contrary shares equally with such heir.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The leading decision on the rights of an illegitimate son is
\nthat  of  the Judicial Committee in  Raja  Jogendra  Bhupati
\nHurri  Chundun Mahapatra v. Nityanund Mansingh (1).   There,
\none  Raja  died leaving behind him a legitimate son  and  an
\nillegitimate  son.  On the death of the legitimate son,\t who
\nhad succeeded to the Raja, it was held that the illegitimate
\nson  succeeded\tto him by survivorship.\t Sir  Richard  Couch
\ncited two verses from Mitakshara Chapter 1, section 12.\t  We
\nhave  already  extracted the said verses.   Commenting\tupon
\nthese verses, the learned Judge observed at P.\t  132 thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Now  it\tis observable that the\tfirst  verse
\n\t      shews  that during the lifetime of the  father
\n\t      the law leaves the son to take a share by\t his
\n\t      father’s choice, and it cannot be said that at
\n\t      his  birth he acquires any right to  share  in
\n\t      the estate in the same way as a legitimate son
\n\t      would  do.   But the language  there  is\tvery
\n\t      distinct, that “if the father be dead the bre-
\n\t      thren  should make him partaker of the  moiety
\n\t      of a share”.  So in the second verse the words
\n\t      are  that\t the brothers are to  allow  him  to
\n\t      participate  for\thalf a share, and  later  on
\n\t      there is the same expression: “The son of\t the
\n\t      female  slave  participates for half  a  share
\n\t      only”.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
On  that interpretation, he accepted the view of the  Bombay
\nHigh  Court  and  held\tthat  an  illegitimate\tson  and   a
\nlegitimate  son, being members of an undivided Hindu  family
\ngoverned   by  Mitakshara,  the\t illegitimate  son   becomes
\nentitled  to  the whole of the immoveable  property  of\t the
\nfamily\tif the legitimate son dies without any\tmale  issue.
\nThe  Judicial  Committee again considered the  right  of  an
\nillegitimate  son in Kamulammal v.  Visvanathaswami  Naicker
\n(2).   There  it was held that in a  competition  between  a
\nwidow  and  an\tillegitimate  son to  the  property  of\t his
\nputative father, the illegitimate son takes half of the
\n(1) (1890) L.R. 17 I.A. 128.\n<\/p>\n
(2) (1922) L.R. 50 I.A. 32.\n<\/p>\n
353<\/span><\/p>\n
property and the widow the other half.\tSir Lawrence Jenkins
\nobserved at p. 37 thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Here the contest is between the\tillegitimate
\n\t      son and the widow, and though the widow is not
\n\t      named in the text it is well settled that as a
\n\t      preferential heir to the daughter’s son she is
\n\t      included\tamong  those  who  share  with\t the
\n\t      illegitimate son, and it would serve no useful
\n\t      purpose to speculate why she was not mentioned
\n\t      in the text.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  status of the illegitimate son was subject\t of  further
\nscrutiny  by  the  Privy Council in  Vellaiyappa  Chetty  v.
\nNatarajan  (1).\t There the question arose in the context  of
\nan  illegitimate  son’s right to maintenance  from  a  joint
\nfamily\tproperty after the death of his father who  left  no
\nseparate property.  The Judicial Committee held that he\t was
\nentitled as a member of the family to maintenance out of the
\njoint  family property in the hands of the collaterals\twith
\nwhom the father was joint.  In dealing with the question  of
\nstatus\tof an illegitimate son, Sir Dinshah Mulla,  speaking
\nfor  the  Court, after considering the\trelevant  Hindu\t Law
\ntexts and decisions, arrived at the following conclusion  at
\np. 15:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “On a consideration of the texts and the cases
\n\t      on the subject their Lordships are of  opinion
\n\t      that  the\t illegitimate son of a\tSudra  by  a
\n\t      continuous concubine has the status of a\tson,
\n\t      and  that he is a member of the  family;\tthat
\n\t      the  share of inheritance given to him is\t not
\n\t      merely   in  lieu\t of  maintenance,   but\t  in
\n\t      recognition    of\t   his\t  status    as\t   a
\n\t      son;………………\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It  is\tnot  necessary\tto  multiply  decisions.   The\t law
\npertaining  to the right of inheritance of  an\tillegitimate
\nson to his putative father’s; self-acquired property may  be
\nstated,\t thus: An illegitimate son has the status of  a\t son
\nunder  the Hindu Law and he is a member of the family.\t But
\nhis  rights are limited compared to those of a son  born  in
\nwedlock.  He has no right by birth and, therefore, he cannot
\ndemand\tpartition during his father’s lifetime.\t During\t the
\nlifetime of his father, the law allows the illegitimate\t son
\nto take
\n(1)  (1931) I.L. R. 55 Mad. 1.\n<\/p>\n
45<\/span>
\n354<\/span><\/p>\n
only  such  share as his father may give him.\tBut  on\t his
\nfather’s death, he takes his father’s self-acquired property
\nalong with the legitimate son and in case the legitimate son
\ndies, he takes the entire property by survivorship.  Even if
\nthere  is no legitimate son, the illegitimate son  would  be
\nentitled to a moiety only of his father’s estate when  there
\nis  a  widow, daughter or daughter’s son of  the  last\tmale
\nholder.\t  In the absence of any one of the three  heirs,  he
\nsucceeds  to  the  entire estate of his\t father.   From\t the
\npremises it follows that an illegitimate son, except to\t the
\nextent\tcircumscribed  by  the.\t Hindu Law  texts,  has\t the
\nstatus of a son and is heir to the self-acquired property of
\nhis  putative father.  If that be his undoubted right  under
\nthe  Hindu Law, on what principle can he be deprived of\t his
\nright  of  succession to the other moiety  of  his  father’s
\nproperty after the death of the widow?\tUnder the Hindu Law,
\nthe death of the widow opens inheritance to the reversioners
\nand  the  nearest heir at the time to the  last\t full  owner
\nbecomes entitled to possession.\t When the succession  opens,
\nin  a  competition  between an illegitimate  son  and  other
\nreversioners,  the  illegitimate son is certainly  a  nearer
\nheir  to the last male holder than the\tother  reversioners.
\nIf he was the nearest heir only yielding half a share to the
\nwidow  at the time of the death of his putative father,\t how
\ndoes  he cease to be one by the intervention of the  widow’s
\nestate?\t  As  on the death of the widow the  estate  reverts
\nback to the last male holder, the succession shall be traced
\nto  him,  and,\tif so traced, the  illegitimate\t son  has  a
\npreferential claim over all other reversioners.\t In  Mayne’s
\nHindu Law, 11th edn., this position has been controverted in
\nthe following manner at p. 637:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The  illegitimate Bon, though he inherits  on
\n\t      the  death of his putative father, along\twith
\n\t      or   in  default\tof  male  issue,  widow\t  or
\n\t      daughter,\t cannot\t come in as  a\treversionary
\n\t      heir on the death of the widow or daughter, as
\n\t      he  is  undoubtedly neither a  sagotra  nor  a
\n\t      bhinnagotra  sapinda of the last,\t male-holder
\n\t      within the text of Manu.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
We regret our inability to accept this proposition.\n<\/p>\n
355<\/span><\/p>\n
for, if accepted, we would be speaking in two voices.\tOnce
\nit  is\testablished that for the purpose  of  succession  an
\nillegitimate son of a Sudra has the status of a son and that
\nhe  is entitled to succeed to his putative  father’s  entire
\nself-acquired  property\t in  the absence of  a\tson,  widow,
\ndaughter  or daughter’s son and to a share along with  them,
\nwe cannot see any escape from the consequential and  logical
\nposition  that he shall be entitled to succeed to the  other
\nhalf  share when succession opens after the  widow’s  death.
\nThe intervention of the widow only postpones the opening  of
\nsuccession to the extent of half share but it cannot  divert
\nthe  succession through a different channel, for she  cannot
\nconstitute  herself  a new stock of  descent.\tThe  opinion
\nexpressed in Mayne’s Hindu Law is sought to be supported  by
\nthe  author  by reference to a decision of the\tMadras\tHigh
\nCourt in Karuppayee Ammal v. Ramaswami (1).  But a reference
\nto  that  judgment shows that no such proposition  has\tbeen
\nlaid  down therein.  There the facts were that on the  death
\nof  a  sudra, the last male owner of an\t estate,  his  widow
\nsucceeded  to a moiety thereof and his illegitimate  son  to
\nthe  other moiety; the widow then died leaving behind her  a
\nson  of the daughter of the last male owner and the  illegi-
\ntimate son above mentioned.  The Madras High Court held that
\nthe  daughter’s\t son  was entitled to the  moiety  that\t had
\nvested\tin  the\t widow\tand the\t illegitimate  son  was\t not
\nentitled  to  any  portion thereof.   The  reason  for\tthat
\nconclusion is found at p. 868 and it is:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The  principle  underlying  the\tdoctrine  of
\n\t      reverter\treferred to is that the\t last  male-
\n\t      holder’s\testate is inherited by\tfemales\t who
\n\t      have no free right of alienation and who\thold
\n\t      a\t peculiar  kind of  estate  called  “woman’s
\n\t      estate”  and on whose death the then  heir  of
\n\t      the  last\t male-holder succeeds  to  the\tlast
\n\t      male-holder’s  estate.  From its very  nature,
\n\t      the doctrine could not apply legitimately to a
\n\t      case  where  the\tlast  male-holder’s   estate
\n\t      vested  on his death not in a female heir\t but
\n\t      in  a  male heir also.  In such  a  case,\t the
\n\t      doctrine as such would not strictly apply, nor
\n\t      has  it been, so far as we are aware,  applied
\n\t      to such a case.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(1)  (1932) I.L.R. 55 Mad. 856.\n<\/p>\n
356<\/span><\/p>\n
The  reason of the decision is therefore clear and  that  is
\nwhen  a daughter’s son succeeds to an estate, there   is  no
\nfurther\t scope\tfor  the  application  of  the\tdoctrine  of
\nreverter.   The\t learned  Judges  expressly  left  open\t the
\npresent\t question when they said, “We are not now  concerned
\nwith the question as to what would become of the property if
\nthe  last of the daughters died without leaving\t a  daughter
\nson,   in  such\t circumstances”.   This\t  decision   cannot,
\ntherefore, be invoked in support of the contention that in a
\ncase where the doctrine of reverter applies the illegitimate
\nson  is\t excluded from succession.  On the other  hand,\t the
\nNagpur\tHigh  Court in Bhagwantrao v. Punjaram\t(1)  rightly
\ncame  to the conclusion that where on a partition between  a
\nlegitimate and an illegitimate son, the widow was allotted a
\nshare,\ton her death the illegitimate son was entitled to  a
\nshare  in  the property.  We, therefore, hold  that  on\t the
\ndeath of the widow, the illegitimate son, the father of\t the
\nfirst  respondent herein, succeeded to the other half  share
\nof the estate of his putative father Raja Ajit Singh.
\nIt  is. next contended that the widows acquired an  absolute
\ninterest  in  the  estate of Raja.  Ajit  Singh\t by  adverse
\npossession  and, therefore, the property would devolve;\t not
\non  Raja Ajit Singh’s heirs but on the heirs of the  widows.
\nOn the question of adverse possession also, both the  courts
\nbelow have held against the appellant.\tBut learned  counsel
\nargued that in the circumstances of this case the said find-
\ning was a mixed question of fact and law.  It was said\tthat
\nthe  courts below missed the point that the Court of  Wards,
\nrepresenting  the  widows,  held  the  Estate  adversely  to
\nRamraghuraj  Singh  in\trespect\t of  his  half\tshare\tand,
\ntherefore,  the fact that during its management\t the  widows
\ndid not deny the title of Ramraghuraj Singh or the fact that
\nthey  admitted\this title could not affect the\tquestion  of
\nadverse\t possession.  Assuming that learned counsel for\t the
\nappellant was correct in his contention, we fail to see\t how
\nthe  said legal position would advance the appellants  case,
\nfor the Court of Wards admittedly managed only the
\n(1)  I.L.R. 1938 Nag. 255.\n<\/p>\n
357<\/span><\/p>\n
widows’\t limited  estate  and  it is not  the  case  of\t the
\nappellant that the Court of Wards acquired on behalf of\t the
\nwidows an absolute interest in respect of the half share  of
\nRamraghuraj  Singh in the suit properties.   The  plaintiffs
\nthemselves  claimed to hereversioners of Raja Ajit Singh  on
\nthe  ground that the succession to him opened out  when\t the
\nwidows\tdied; and if their contention be  accepted,  namely,
\nthat the widows acquired an absolute interest in half of the
\nproperty, they would be non-suited in respect thereof on the
\nsimple\tground\tthat  their  suit was  not  to\trecover\t the
\nproperty  as  the  heirs of the widows.\t  But,\tas  we\thave
\npointed\t out,  the  widows would have acquired\ta  title  by
\nadverse\t possession in respect of the share  of\t Ramraghuraj
\nSingh  only in their capacity as owners of a limited  estate
\ni.e., in regard to their half share they held it as  widow’s
\nestate and in respect of the other half-share of Ramraghuraj
\nSingh  they  acquired a right by adverse possession  only  a
\nlimited\t estate\t therein.   The result would  be,  when\t the
\nwidows died the succession to the estate of Raja Ajit  Singh
\nwould  open  out and the illegitimate son,  as\tthe  nearest
\nheir,  would succeed to the entire estate.   We,  therefore,
\nreject this contention.\n<\/p>\n
In  the\t result,  the appeal fails and\tis  dismissed.\t The
\nrespondent  will not get any costs as the Advocate  for\t the
\nrespondent  is\tabsent in ‘the Court when  the\tjudgment  is
\nbeing delivered.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t    Appeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
358<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Singhal Ajit Kumar & Another vs Ujayarsingh And Others on 16 March, 1961 Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR 1334, 1962 SCR (1) 347 Author: K Subbarao Bench: Subbarao, K. PETITIONER: SINGHAL AJIT KUMAR & ANOTHER Vs. RESPONDENT: UJAYARSINGH AND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16\/03\/1961 BENCH: SUBBARAO, K. BENCH: SUBBARAO, K. DAYAL, RAGHUBAR […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9090","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSinghal Ajit Kumar & Another vs Ujayarsingh And Others on 16 March, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/singhal-ajit-kumar-another-vs-ujayarsingh-and-others-on-16-march-1961\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Singhal Ajit Kumar & Another vs Ujayarsingh And Others on 16 March, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/singhal-ajit-kumar-another-vs-ujayarsingh-and-others-on-16-march-1961\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1961-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-24T18:48:11+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/singhal-ajit-kumar-another-vs-ujayarsingh-and-others-on-16-march-1961#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/singhal-ajit-kumar-another-vs-ujayarsingh-and-others-on-16-march-1961\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Singhal Ajit Kumar & Another vs Ujayarsingh And Others on 16 March, 1961\",\"datePublished\":\"1961-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-24T18:48:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/singhal-ajit-kumar-another-vs-ujayarsingh-and-others-on-16-march-1961\"},\"wordCount\":3529,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/singhal-ajit-kumar-another-vs-ujayarsingh-and-others-on-16-march-1961#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/singhal-ajit-kumar-another-vs-ujayarsingh-and-others-on-16-march-1961\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/singhal-ajit-kumar-another-vs-ujayarsingh-and-others-on-16-march-1961\",\"name\":\"Singhal Ajit Kumar & Another vs Ujayarsingh And Others on 16 March, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1961-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-24T18:48:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/singhal-ajit-kumar-another-vs-ujayarsingh-and-others-on-16-march-1961#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/singhal-ajit-kumar-another-vs-ujayarsingh-and-others-on-16-march-1961\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/singhal-ajit-kumar-another-vs-ujayarsingh-and-others-on-16-march-1961#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Singhal Ajit Kumar & Another vs Ujayarsingh And Others on 16 March, 1961\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Singhal Ajit Kumar & Another vs Ujayarsingh And Others on 16 March, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/singhal-ajit-kumar-another-vs-ujayarsingh-and-others-on-16-march-1961","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Singhal Ajit Kumar & Another vs Ujayarsingh And Others on 16 March, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/singhal-ajit-kumar-another-vs-ujayarsingh-and-others-on-16-march-1961","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1961-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-24T18:48:11+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/singhal-ajit-kumar-another-vs-ujayarsingh-and-others-on-16-march-1961#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/singhal-ajit-kumar-another-vs-ujayarsingh-and-others-on-16-march-1961"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Singhal Ajit Kumar & Another vs Ujayarsingh And Others on 16 March, 1961","datePublished":"1961-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-24T18:48:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/singhal-ajit-kumar-another-vs-ujayarsingh-and-others-on-16-march-1961"},"wordCount":3529,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/singhal-ajit-kumar-another-vs-ujayarsingh-and-others-on-16-march-1961#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/singhal-ajit-kumar-another-vs-ujayarsingh-and-others-on-16-march-1961","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/singhal-ajit-kumar-another-vs-ujayarsingh-and-others-on-16-march-1961","name":"Singhal Ajit Kumar & Another vs Ujayarsingh And Others on 16 March, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1961-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-24T18:48:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/singhal-ajit-kumar-another-vs-ujayarsingh-and-others-on-16-march-1961#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/singhal-ajit-kumar-another-vs-ujayarsingh-and-others-on-16-march-1961"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/singhal-ajit-kumar-another-vs-ujayarsingh-and-others-on-16-march-1961#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Singhal Ajit Kumar & Another vs Ujayarsingh And Others on 16 March, 1961"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9090","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9090"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9090\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9090"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9090"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9090"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}