Property lawOwnershipPrivy Council (on appeal from Allahabad)

Maharani Hemanta Kumari Debi v Gauri Shankar Tewari

AIR 1941 PC 38; [1940] UKPC 65; (1941) 43 Bom LR 77719401 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
The plaintiff, Maharani Hemanta Kumari Debi, widow of the last male owner of the Puthia Raj estate, claimed to own the Prayag (Puthia) bathing ghat on the Ganges at Benares, in the Dasaswamedh area.
Held
The dispute was over ownership of the Prayag or Puthia bathing ghat at Benares.
Principle
The plaintiff was held to own the Prayag (Puthia) bathing ghat at Benares; the trial decree for removal of obstructions was restored, with the injunction limited to ghatia activity carried on without her consent.
Cite this

Facts

  • The plaintiff, Maharani Hemanta Kumari Debi, widow of the last male owner of the Puthia Raj estate, claimed to own the Prayag (Puthia) bathing ghat on the Ganges at Benares, in the Dasaswamedh area
  • The defendants were ghatias, Brahmins who sat on the ghat to receive alms from pilgrim bathers; she alleged they had been allowed there by the owners but had altered the steps and put up platforms, canopies and other obstructions
  • She sued on 15 February 1929 for a declaration of ownership, ejectment, removal of the obstructions and an injunction; the defendants claimed a heritable right to their sites by custom, prescription or lost grant
  • The trial judge decreed the suit on 25 June 1930; a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court (3 January 1936) kept the order to remove obstructions but discharged the declaration, the ejectment and the injunction; she appealed to the Privy Council

Held

  • The dispute was over ownership of the Prayag or Puthia bathing ghat at Benares.
  • The Privy Council restored the trial judge's decree: the plaintiff owned the ghat and the obstructions were to be removed. The injunction was limited to ghatia activity carried on without her consent.

Cite this

Citation

Maharani Hemanta Kumari Debi v Gauri Shankar Tewari AIR 1941 PC 38; [1940] UKPC 65; (1941) 43 Bom LR 777

Reported: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/384627/. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.