Judgement

Appeal (No. 44 of 1928) from a decree of the Chief Court of Oudh (April 27, 1926) affirming a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Partabgarh (April 22, 1924).

66 Law Rep. 56 Ind. App. 372 ( 1928- 1929) Raghunath Prasad Singh V. Deputy Commissioner, Partab Garh 167

The suit was brought by Jagdeo Singh, the father (since deceased) of the appellants, who claimed that on the death of his younger brother, Partab Bahadur Singh, he was entitled to succeed as heir to their uncle Raja Ajit Singh, who died in 1889. The plaintiff contended that under the will of Ajit Singh, dated November 6, 1884, Partab took only a life interest, all the other provisions being invalid ; that upon Ajit Singhs death, Sitla Baksh Singh (the father of the plaintiff and of Partab) succeeded as heir subject only to the life estate of Partab, and that the plaintiff was entitled as successor of Sitla under the Oudh Estates Act, 1869, and by the custom of primogeniture.

The Chief Court (Stuart C.J. and Wazir Hasan J.), affirming the view of the trial judge, held that upon the true construction of the will Partab took an absolute estate. The suit was accordingly dismissed.

1929. July 13, 14, 17. Dunne K.C. and Jopling for the appellants.

De Gruyther K.C., Wallach and Dube for the respondents.

[Reference was made to Tagore v. Tagore (( 1872) L. R. I. A. Supp. 47.) ; Tarakeswar Roy v. Soshi Shikhareswar (( 1883) L. R. 10 I. A. 51.); Kristoromoney Dossee v. Norendra Dossee (( 1888) L. R. 16 I. A. 29.) ; Radha Prosad Mullick v. Ranimoni Dassi (( 1908) L. R. 35 I. A. 118.); Skinner v. Naunihal Singh (( 1913) L. R. 40 I. A. 105.); Bhaidas Shivdas v. Bai Gulab. (( 1921) L. R. 49 I. A. 1.)]

July 25. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by

SIR BINOD MITTER. This is an appeal from the decree dated April 27, 1926, of the Chief Court of Oudh, affirming the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Partabgarh dated April 22, 1924. The litigation relates to properties originally owned by one Raja Ajit Singh, who died on December 18, 1889, having devised and bequeathed those properties to Rajah Partab Bahadur Singh by his will dated November 6, 1884. Rajah Partab Bahadur Singh died on June 18, 1921.

The principal question for determination in the present appeal is whether on the true construction of the said will Partab took a life interest or an absolute interest in the property devised by the said will. The appellants (who are the heirs of Raja Ajit Singh) claimed to be entitled to the property in dispute in this appeal on the footing that Partab took only a life interest under the said will, and the respondents 4 to 9, who are devisees or transferees of or from Partab, contend that Partab took an absolute interest under the will.

The following pedigree shows the relationship of the parties to the present litigation

AUDHAN SINGH.

|

| |

Sarabjit Singh A jit Singh (died on Bishnath Sin gh

(died before t he 18th December, (died before

Mutiny and 1889, without annexation) .

without issue). issue). |

|

| |

Sitla Bakhsh Singh Deomangal Singh

died on 28th April, (died in March,

1908. 1892, leaving

| three sons).

|

66 Law Rep. 56 Ind. App. 372 ( 1928- 1929) Raghunath Prasad Singh V. Deputy Commissioner, Partab Garh 168

| | |

Sukhdeo Singh (died Jagdeo Singh, Partab Bahadur

without issue on 1st plaintiff, since Singh (died on 18th

June, 1895.) deceased. June, 1921),

| leaving three

| widows, the 4th,

| 5th and 6th

| defendants,

| respondents.

t | |

Raghunath. Lal Anant Prasad.

Appellant No. 1. Appellant No. 2.

The learned Chief Judge of the Chief Court of Oudh has given an account showing how Ajit Singh acquired the properties which he disposed of by his will. It is therefore not necessary to reiterate the same. It is sufficient to state that Raja Ajit Singh was a talukdar of Oudh and his name was entered as such in the lists 1, 2 and 5 prepared under s. 8 of Act I. of 1869.

The said will contains (inter alia) the following provisions " As I have got no self-begotten son so