Sir John Edge:-

This is an appeal by the plaintiff in the suit from the decree of the 15th April 1914, of the High Court at Allahabad, which varied the decree of the 6th July 1912, of the Subordinate Judge of Moradabad.

The suit was brought to obtain a rectification of a deed of compromise dated the 27th October 1908, which was registered. The rectification was claimed on the ground that the plaintiff had been induced to consent to the deed by the false and fraudulent statements of the defendant that the deed contained the terms of compromise which had been agreed upon between them, and upon the further ground that after the deed had been executed, and before it was registered, the defendant had, fraudulently and without the knowledge of the plaintiff, inserted in the deed certain words to the effect that he should be the lambardar of the property to which the deed related. The principal and vital matter in dispute in this suit is as to whether the plaintiff and the defendant had agreed to a compromise by which the plaintiff should have an absolute property in one-half of the estate of which one Kunwar Randhir Singh had died possessed, or should have merely a life interest in a moiety of that estate. By the deed of which the plaintiff seeks a rectification she took only a life interest in a moiety of that estate.

The plaintiff's case was that she was the widow of one Kunwar Randhir Singh, who had been a Hindu, and was, at the time of his death, a Christian, and that as his widow she was, under the Indian Succession Act, 1865 (Act X of 1865), entitled to one-half of his property absolutely, as Kunwar Randhir Singh had died intestate, leaving no lineal descendant, but leaving persons who were of kindred to him within the meaning of the Act. Those persons who were of kindred to Kunwar Randhir Singh were his brother, the defendant, his sister Bibi Bhagwati, his nephew, Kameshwar Nath, and his niece Bibi Kamavati, the son and daughter of a sister of his who had died before him.

Kunwar Randhir Singh who was a nephew of Raja Shyam Singh, of Tajpur, died possessed of a considerable property which was his separate estate. On his death the plaintiff applied to the Revenue Court for mutation of names in her favour as his widow, in respect of the immovable property of which he had died possessed, and the defendant also applied for mutation of names in his favour; each claimed the whole of the property of which Kunwar Randhir Singh had died possessed to the exclusion of the other of them.

The defendant at the time denied that the plaintiff was the widow of Kunwar Randhir Singh, his contention being that the plaintiff had not been lawfully married to Kunwar Randhir Singh, and had been in fact his mistress. The Revenue Court declined to act on either of the applications for mutation of names. Kunwar Sheonath Singh, who was an uncle of the defendant, endeavoured to bring about a compromise between the plaintiff and the defendant. There can be no doubt that Kunwar Sheonath Singh considered that the plaintiff had been lawfully married to his nephew Kunwar Randhir Singh, and that she was his widow. On the 13th February 1908, Kunwar, Sheonath Singh wrote to the plaintiff stating,

"I am of opinion that it would be better if you and Diggi (the defendant) should get a sulehnama (agreement of compromise) executed and registered, and come to terms on the condition that your name, as life tenant, be entered against the entire property, and you enjoy the entire income, and that afterwards Diggi should become the owner of the entire property. You will be at liberty to appoint any person you like as manager, and Diggi will not interfere in the matter."

Their Lordships think it right to say that in their opinion the terms of compromise which Kunwar Sheonath Singh then suggested were decidedly favourable to the plaintiff. In effect Kunwar Sheonath Singh was proposing that the plaintiff should be treated as if she was the widow of a separated and sonless Hindu.

To t