Judgement

Consolidated Appeals (Nos. 102, 103, 104 of 1929) from two decrees of the Chief Court of Oudh (December 15, 1927) varying an original decree of a judge of that Court (January 4, 1927).

The these appeals related to the succession to the Oudh taluqa of Gangwal, which had been granted to Raja Sitla Bakhsh Singh under a taluqdari sanad, his name being entered in lists 1 and 2 under s. 8 of the Oudh Estates Act, 1869.

The last male holder was Raja Suraj Prakash Singh, who died in 1899, survived by two widows and by Dulahin Jadunath Kuar, the widow of his only son who had died in 1894. The three ladies above mentioned entered into an agreement whereby they were to possess the taluqa in succession to one another, five villages being set apart for the maintenance of the two not in possession. On the death in 1925 of the last survivor of the widows of Raja Suraj disputes arose, and the Deputy Commissioner took possession of the taluqa under s. 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure, except as to the five villages which were left in the possession of Dulahin Jadunath Kuar.

In 1926 Raja Bisheshar Bakhsh Singh instituted the present suit in the Chief Court claiming the taluqa under s. 22, sub-s. 10, of the Oudh Estates Act, 1869, as amended in 1910; he alleged that he was the nearest male agnate to the last male holder according to the rule of lineal primogeniture. The defendants were (1.) Dulahin Jadunath Kuar; (2.) Lal Harihar Pratap Bakhsh Singh; (3.) Mahabir Singh. The last named was only a pro-forma party in the present appeals. Defendant No. 1 by her written statement alleged that Raja Sitla Bakhsh Singh by a will of April 30, 1869, had bequeathed the taluqa to his widow, who had assigned it to Raja Sitlas brother (Narpat Singh). She contended that the property thereby ceased to be under the Act of 1869, and that succession was governed by Hindu law, subject to the family custom of single heir succession; she relied also upon the above mentioned agreement of 1899 between herself and the widows of the last holder. Defendant No. 2 denied the plaintiffs title and claimed to succeed whether succession was under the Act or otherwise.

The parties were Kshatriyas governed by the Mitakshara.

The trial judge (King J.) held the will of 1869 was invalid for want of attestation, that succession was governed by the Act, and that the plaintiff was entitled to succeed according to its provisions.

Upon appeals Stuart C.J. and Hasan J. varied the decree only by holding that the agreement of 1899 was valid as a family arrangement and that under it Dulahin Jadunath Kuar was entitled to the five villages for her maintenance. The appeals are reported at I. L. R. 3 Luck. 326.

Law. Rep. 59 Ind. App. 173 ( 1931- 1932) Dulahin Jadunath Kuar V. Raja Bisheshar Bakksh Singh

The facts appear more fully from the judgments of the Judicial Committee.

[Appeals Nos. 102 and 103.] 1930. Oct. 14, 16, 17, 20. Sir John Simon K.C., De Gruyther K.C., Dunne K.C., and Dube for defendant No. 1. The document of April 30, 1869, was an effective will although it was not attested. Both Courts held that it was a testamentary document. Sect. 19 of the Act, which by incorporating s. 50 of the Indian Succession Act, required the will of a u taluqdar" to be attested did not apply. " The meaning of " taluqdar " in the Act is defined by s. 2 to be any person whose name is entered in list 1 ; but when the will was made the list had been neither approved nor published. The Act cannot have been intended to impose a new condition for validity by reason of a list to be published at a later date. The provision as to supplementary lists enforces that view. The Chief Court treated the judgment of the Board in Mata Prasad v. Nageshar Sahai (( 1925) L. R. 52 I. A. 398.) as deciding that s. 19 applies to a will made before publication of the list. That, however, was merely assumed for the purposes of the judgment; the contrary view was not argued, because it would not have affected the righ