HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0608 and id is 1 raw text is: X MOORE IND. APP., 511 JOWALA BUKSH V. DUARUM SINGH [1866]
[511] JOWALA BUKSH, son of MEETA RAM,-Appellant; DHARUM SINGH, alias
IMDAD ULEE KHAN; MUSSUMAT BAJAH KOONWUR and Others,-Re-
spondents * [Feb. 13, 14, 1866].
On appeal frn.n the Sudder Dewanny Ada wlut, North-Western Provinces, Agra.
It is essential that a Claimant seeking to oust a party in possession of an estate,
should establish his own right to the estate, and not rely upon the failure of the
title impeached [10 Moo. Ind. App. 528].
A decree of the Sudder Court held, that although the title set up by the Plaintiff
might be wholly bad, yet that a party Defendant with whom the Plaintiff had
by a deed of Solunamah, or compromise, agreed to divide the estate, was en-
titled and on that ground decreed possession. Such decree reversed on appeal,
as the effect of the decree would be (1) to defeat the Defendant's possessory title
without giving him an opportunity of contesting the title of the party by whom
he is turned out of possession, and (2) as it was a violation of legal principles
which protect possession, and of justice which regulate the joinder of parties
and the union of titles to sue in one suit.
Act, No. XIII. of 1848, is limited to Awards made by Collectors under Ben. Regs.
VII. of 1822, IX. of 1825, and IX. of 1833, which gives to the Revenue authori-
ties judicial power to determine questions of possession, and the right of appeal
from such Award is subjected to three years' limitation.
The general rule, that the possession of one member of a joint Hindoo family is
the possession of all other members, does not apply where the party claiming
has been clearly excluded from the family. In such a case the possession is
adverse, and under the general law of limitation the time will run from such
adverse possession.
Whether, a Hindoo family, though converted to Mahomedanism, but conforming
for several generations to Hindoo customs and usages, can, by virtue of the
retention of Hindoo customs and usages, set up for itself a special and custom-
ary law of inheritance. Quaere?
Abraham v. Abrahairb (9 Moore's Ind. App. Cases, 199) distinguished from such a
case [10 Moo. Ind. App. 537].
The suit out of which this appeal arose, was instituted by Aram Singh, alias
Ushruff Ulee, since deceased, and one of the Respondents, Kalal Singh, [512] alias
Gholam Ulee, the sons of one Loll Singh, caste Thakoor Burh Gugar, a race de-
scended from the Rajpoot tribe of Hindoos, on the banks of the Doab, who had been
converted to Mahomedanism; against the Appellant and Mussumat Soondur, widow
of Meeta Ram, to obtain a declaration of their hereditary right to succeed to the
Taloogna of Ourungabad Kaseer, consisting of eight Mouzahs situate in the Boolund-
shuhur District, in the North-Western Provinces; and also to cancel and set aside a
deed of sale, dated the 17th of October, 1842, executed by the late Thookranee Maha
Kooer, also called Mussumat Maha Kooer, the widow of Tara Singh, in favour of
Meeta Ram, the Appellant's father, and to recover mesne profits in respect of the
Taloogna.
The circumstances which gave rise to the appeal were as follows:-
Roop Singh, alias Pahulwan Ulee Khan, the common ancestor, was Zemindar of
Ourungabad, and died in the year 1753. He had issue three sons, Lootf Ulee Khan,
alias Tara Singh, Mokund Singh, and Mohun Singh, who. alone had issue a son, named
Loll Singh. He also died, leaving two sons, the Plaintiff, Aram Singh, and Golol
Singh.
The Appellafit's case was, that Mohun Singh was the issue of a concubine, and that
Loll Singh the issue of a female musician, and, consequently, that the descent of Aram
Singh and Golol Singh from Pahulwan Ulee Khan was not legitimate.
[513] On the death of Tara Singh without issue, in 1805, his widow, Thookranee
Maha Kooer, became proprietress of the Ourungahad estate, and also of the Chuka-
thul estate, of which Roop Singh had been also Zemindar, but which estate was not
* Present: Members of the Judicial Committee,-The Right Hon. the Lord Justice
Turner, the Right Hon. Sir James William Colvile, and the Right Hon. Sir Edward
Vaughan Williams. Assessor,-The Right Hon. Sir Lawrence Peel.
1066](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0608&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)