« السابقةمتابعة »
The Judgment of the Zillah Judge, Mr. Wilkins, which was given on 24th of April, 1860 (Appendix Page 158) found that the family custom, accordivg to which the estate was impartible, and descendible to the eldest male heir, subsisted at, and up to, the time of Fatteh Sahee, that this custom was not abrogated by his expulsion, the retention of the property by Government, and the grant of it to Chutterdharee; and that the estate was in his hands an impartible Raj, descendible to his next male heir alone, and therefore on the renunciation of Ugur Partap to the respondent. The Judge made no distinction in this respect between the moveable and immoveable property, and on the above ground decreed in favour of the respondent. He held, however, that the alleged consignment or transfer of the 5th of March, and the will, were not well prov
And he decreed an allowance of Rs. 2,000, per mensem to each of the plaintiffs, viz., the appellant and his brother.
The Judgment of the High Court on appeal from this decree is at page 17 of the 2nd Record, and is dated 24th April, 1863. That Court also held that the Raj was originally impartible, and descendible by custom to the eldest male heir alone; and that it did not lose this character on its restoration to Chutterdharee. It denied that there had been or could have been any confiscation in the proper sense of the term, and in Mr. Justice Lepinge's separate note at page 26, this point is more fully argued. But the High Court differing therein from the Zillah Judge, affirmed the validity of the will. It also reduced the allowance to each of the plaintiffs to Rs 1,000 per mensem.
Upon the whole, then, their Lordships have come to the conclusion that the Courts below were right in holding that the estate granted to Chutterdharee in 1790, was the Raj of Hussaipore, and that the right of succession to it from him was to be governed by law or custom which regulated its descent in the line of his ancestors.
It follows, then, that either by the special law of inheritance, or by the will, the respondent was entitled to the estate of Hussaipore, and to whatever wealth the late Maharaja could dispose of by his will.
With respect to the question raised in either appeal touching the amount of the Babuana allowance, and the costs of the proceedings in Courts below, their Lordships have only to say, that they see no sufficient ground for interfering with the discretion exercised on those points by the High Court. The result is, that their Lordships will humbly advise Her Majesty to dismiss both the appeal and the cross appeal with costs. The appellant and respondent will each bear the costs of his appeal.
Hotwa RAJ IN THE "AIN-I-AKBARI."
When I had the honor of reading my paper on the History of the Hatwa Raj in the Society's meeting on the 4th March, 1903, Colonel Hendley, Vice-President in the Chair, very kindly suggested to me to ascertain if any account can be gathered from the Ain-i-Akbari regarding the Hutwa Maharajas. I had since the occasion to carefully look through the Ain, and the result of my investigation is embodied in the following note.
The Ain is singularly wanting in information of any of the Behar Rajas which claim their origin from the Mughal Emperor of Delhi, Akbar, Jehangir, or Shah Jehan. “The Darbhanga family trace their origin to one Mohesh Thakur, who originally came from near Jabalpur, in the Central Provinces, in the beginning of the sixteenth century and took service as a purohit or priest under the ancient Rajas of Tirhut, the descendants of Sheo Sing. After Tirhut was conquered and the race of that prince became extinct, Mohesh Thakur is said to have proceeded to Delhi, where his abilities procured him an introduction to the Emperor Akbar and subsequently the grant of the Darbhanga Raj. According to another account, it was one of his pupils, Raghunandan Thakur, who went to Delhi, obtained the Raj, and then out of appreciation for Mohesh made it over to him” (vide Hunter's Statistical Account of Bengal, Vol. XIII, p. 208). But neither the names of Mohesh Thakur nor Raghunandan Thakur belonging to Darbhanga, nor any account of Sheo Sing and the overthrow of his descendants and the extinction of his race is available in the Ain. Neither do we find the name or any account of Bettiah or its “first Raja, who was Gaj Sing and who obtained the title from Emperor Shah Jehan" (ibid, p. 252). Likewise we do not find any mention in the Ain of the very ancient Majbowli Raj, which, I am informed, still retains a jewel-handled sword gifted by Akbar. The traditions of these Rajas should not therefore be rejected as pure fabrications, as we find from the Ain itself that out of 1,803 names, Abul Fazl gives the names of only 415, the chief ones, and that also of those only who were alive or dead prior to the fortieth year of Akbar's reign, i.e., till 1595 A.D. (vide Blochmann's Ain-e-Akbari, Vol. I, pages 526-35). The omission of the names in the Ain of Maharaja
J. I. 29
Kalyan Mall, of the Hutwa family, may be justly ascribed to the fact that we have fixed the date of his ascension to be 1600 A.D., i.e., at a period posterior to that of which the Ain gives the list. But fortunately we can very fairly and safely trace from the Ain incidents in which Kalyan Mall must have taken share and which caused his rise. Muzaffar had commenced vigorously to collect the outstanding from Makhsum Kabli and several other grandees that held jagirs in Behar, upon which they had rebelled and joined with the rebel jagirdars of Bengal under Babu Khan Qushqal. On Muzaffar's death the rebels occupied the whole of Bengal and Behar, and Akbar sent Todar Mall to Behar to subdue the rebels. Makhsum Khan Hazari, who had received Ghazipur as his tuyūl, joined Sadar Mall, but was anxious to go over to the rebels and actually did so, finding the Emperor personally embarrassed in the subjugation of his brother, who had threatened to invade the Punjab. He seized Jaunpur, but was defeated near Oudh by Shahbaz Khan. He then collected his men and surprised and plundered the town of Bahraich. From Bahraich he was driven by the imperialists (amongst whom was Vazir Khan and others from Hajipur) over Kalyanpur to Muhammadabad (in Gbazipur), which he plundered and prepared to attack Jaunpur. Shahan Khan Jalair, from Narhan, and Pahar Khan, from Ghazipur, united their contingents and pursued Makhsum so effectually that he applied to Aziz Kokah to intercede for him with the Emperor. Akbar pardoned him and gave him Pergannah Mehsi, Sircar Champaran, as tuyūl (Blochmann's Ain-i-Akbari, Vol. I, pages 350, 351, 400, 410, 443, 444).
With these facts in view it seems doubtless that Raja Kalyan Mall was not idle enough to partake a share in subduing the rebellion raging in his own country and in the vicinity. Further, we find his seat, Kalyanpur distinctly mentioned also in Vol. II, Fasc. II, p. 156, of Colonel H. S. Jarrett's Ain-z-Akbari, to be in Sircar Saran.
We can, therefore, very well deduce that the services of Raja Kalyan Mall were recognised and he was made a “Maharaja" in the latter part of Akbar's reign.
Babu Rossan Sahee Died before his father.
Babu Arimurdun Sahee
Babu Dullmurdain Salee Babu Somessur Sahee Babu Runbahadar Sahee Babu Mohesh Dutt Sahee
RAJA DILIP SAHEE
Babu Jangajit Sahee
Babu Sammanta Sahee
RAJA PRITHVIPAL Baba Dull Thumbun 2nd Son,
100. MAHARAJA CHUTTERDHARRY
Maharaja Futteh Sahee Babadoor who hay.
RAJA KHURRUGA BAHADOOR
MAHARAJ KUMAR RAMSAHAI SAHEE
Died before his father.
Kumar Prithvipal Sahee
3 daughters; one Married at Benares and
the grandmother of the present Maharaja Pravu Naryan Sing, G.C.I.E., of Bena
RAJA KRISHNAPRATAP SAHEE
Babu Ugrapratap Sahee
Babu Devaraj Sabee A daughter Baba Tiluckdharee Sahee
Babu Beerpratap Sahee
2nd Son. (no male issue, had a daughter married at Hurdi, Dist. Mozafferpur.)
101. MAHARAJA RAJENDRA PRATAP
Babu Narendra Pratap Sahee
Baba Shiva Pratap Babu Deokinandan
A daughter married
at Jagatga n'j, Benares,
MAHARAJ-KUMAR SIVA PRATAP SAHEE
(Died young before his father.)
103. MAHARAJ KUMAR GURU MAHADEV.
ASRAM PRASAD SAHEE