The central legal point established in the judgment was the interpretation and application of Act I. of 1869, s. 22, in determining succession rights and the validity of the sale deed in relation to champerty and public policy.

Judgement

Appeal from a decree of the above Court (June 7,. 1899) reversing a decree of the Additional Civil Judge of Lucknow (April 29, 1896).

The appeal raised the right of succession to the taluqa of Birwa Mehnon, situate in the district of Gonda in Oudh, the last male owner of which was Bhaiya Pirthipal Singh. After the annexation of Oudh and the confiscation of all proprietary rights in the soil by the proclamation of March 15, 1858, the second summary settlement of this taluqa was made with him in February, 1859, and on the preparation of lists of taluqdars, as provided by Act I. of 1869, s. 8, his name was entered in lists 1 and

2. He died on November 3, 1859, and was succeeded by his widow Thakurain Sarfaraz Koer, who died on February 20, 1870, and was succeeded by her daughter Thakurain Brijraj Koer. The daughter died on February 23, 1879, and on her death the Deputy Commissioner of Gonda, by order dated February 27, 1879, placed her husband Lal Achal Ram , the appellant, in possession of the said taluqa.

Since then there has been constant litigation by members of the family of Pirthipal Singh to recover possession of the estate, and two judgments in regard to the succession have been delivered by the Privy Council, the first in Achal Ram v. Udai Partab Addiya Dat Singh (( 1883)

L.R. 11 Ind. Ap. 51.), and the second in Narindar Bahadur Singh v. Achal Ram . (( 1893) L. R. 20 Ind. Ap. 77,) Those judgments established—(( 1883) L, R. 11 Ind. Ap, 51.) that Pirthipal Singh was a taluqdar within the meaning of Act I. of 1869, and that the succession to his estate is governed by s. 22 of the Act; (2.) that in default of other heirs specified in the said section the succession is governed by clause 11 thereof, and that in the application of that clause a single heir alone succeeds ; (3.) that the single heir, where the taluqdars name is in list 2, is not to be determined of necessity by the rule of lineal primogeniture, that nearness of degree has preference over priority of line, and that where two claimants are equal in degree preference is given to priority of line; (4.) that a Hindu female succeeding under the said section takes only a Hindu females estate of inheritance, and on her death the succession opens to the next heir of the last male holder.

Pirthipal Singhs death in November, 1859, was before the regular settlement of the province of Oudh. His widow Sarfaraz Koer eventually obtained from the Commissioner of Fyzabad on August 25, 1869, a decree declaring her absolute proprietor as widow of the taluqdar succeeding under Act I. of 1869,

s. 22, clause 7. On her daughters death as above stated Jubraj Singh claimed as nearest collateral heir to Pirthipal. At his death in November, 1881, Ardawan succeeded to his claim, and in 1888 sold a half-share to the respondent. The suit in which this appeal arose was brought by Ardawan and the respondent, An earlier suit had been brought against Achal Ram by Udai Partab Addiya Dat Singh, Raja of Bhaiya, who claimed preferentially by the rule of lineal primogeniture as a collateral nearer in line, but later in degree as compared to Ardawans father. He obtained possession under a decree of the Judicial Commissioner, and in turn one Narindar, another collateral heir (entitled only if the succession opened on the death of Sarfaraz Koer) obtained a decree against t a in 1883, and he also sold a half-share to the respondent. Finally the Privy Council dismissed the Raja of Bhaiyas suit on the ground that he had failed to prove a custom of descent by lineal primogeniture (Sec L. R. 11 Ind Ap. 51.), and dismissed Narindars suit (L. R. 20 Ind. Ap. 77.) on the ground that he had failed to prove the exclusion of daughters from inheritance. Achal Ram regained possession after the dismissal of the Raja of Bhaiyas suit.

The present suit was founded on the preferential heirship of Ardawans father when the succession opened on the death of Pirthipals daughter, the Raja respondent claiming as purch