Judgement

Consolidated Appeals (No. 27 of 1924) from two decrees (March 2, 1922) of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh, varying a decree (January 31, 1920) of the Subordinate Judge of Lucknow.

The suit giving rise to the present consolidated appeals was instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Hardoi by the first appellant, Mata Prasad (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant"), the principal defendant being the present first respondent (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent").

The appellant by his plaint claimed possession of two Oudh estates, named the Wali estate and the Baragaon estate. The former had been placed in list 5 made under s. 8 of the Oudh Estates Act, 1869, and the latter in list 2.

The facts of the case, including a pedigree of the family, appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

The appellant by his plaint denied the genuineness of the will dated October 21, 1904, of Narindra Bahadur, who died on June 18, 1905, and denied the validity of the adoption of the respondent made under that will; he, therefore, claimed the Wali estate as next heir to Narindra Bahadur. The will of Narindra Bahadur had been declared to be genuine in 1913 by a judgment delivered by the Judicial Committee in a former suit by a reversioner, Durga Prasad, against Jagrani Kuar. The appellant claimed the Baragaon estate as next heir to Wazir Chand, who died in 1887. He contended that if succession to that estate had passed out of the operation of Act I. of 1869 in consequence of the will by which Fateh Chand bequeathed the estate to his younger son not having been registered under that Act, yet by virtue of U. P. Act III. of 1910 the estate had again become subject to the operation of Act I. of 1869. The appellant further contended that a compromise, dated November 25, 1899, of a suit between Narindra Bahadur and Rani Chandra Kuar, by which the latter admitted that succession to the Baragaon estate was governed by Act I. of 1869, was not binding upon him.

The respondent pleaded, among other things, that the will of Narindra Bahadur, and his adoption thereunder, were genuine, and that that question was res judicata. He contended that the Baragaon estate had passed out of the operation of Act I. of 1869 and that U. P. Act III. of 1910 did not affect its devolution. He pleaded further that under the compromise the Baragaon estate was vested in remainder in Narindra Bahadur.

The suit was tried by the Subordinate Judge of Lucknow, whose findings shortly were as follows. With regard to Wali he found, contrary to the decision of the Privy Council in 1913, that the will of Narindra Bahadur was a forgery, and that the adoption of the present respondent consequently was invalid. He therefore made a decree in favour of the plaintiff as to Wali. With regard to Baragaon he found that the will of Fateh Chand, by which he devised the estate to his younger son Wazir Chand, was genuine, but was ineffective for want of registration under Act I. of 1869. He found that Wazir Chand had obtained proprietary possession of the estate in his fathers lifetime, and that the estate in his hands ceased to be regulated by Act I. of 1869. He rejected the contention that the estate had become subject to that Act again by virtue of U. P. Act III. of 1910. The claim in respect of Baragaon was dismissed.

Both parties appealed to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, which reversed the decree in respect of Wali and affirmed it in respect of Baragaon, with the result that the suit was dismissed.

1925. May 12, 14, 18, 19, 21. Dunne K.C. and Wallach for the appellant. The appellant concedes that he must fail as to Wali if the will of Narendra was genuine. That question is not res judicata by the judgment of the Privy Council in 1913. Even if in the previous suit the plaintiff had succeeded he would not have become entitled to the estate, his claim was to certain other property which was subject to Hindu law. The appellant does not claim