(The judgment of the Allahabad High Court delivered by Lindsay and Sulai man, JJ., was as follows.)

The property in dispute in this case consists of a three-biswa odd share in three villages, Kairgarh, Nagla Himmat and Nagla Khayatan, and belonged to one Baldeo Singh who died in the year 1898. According to the pedigree set out in the plaint, Baldeo Singh had a son Bha rat Singh, who, it is admitted, prede ceased him.

When Baldeo Singh died he was suc ceeded by his widow, Mt. Phula Kun war who remained in possession of his estate till her death in January 1912. At the time she died the next heir under the Hindu law was Bhanwar Singh alias Khairati Singh, the son of Baldeo' daughter. He was impleaded in the suit out of which this appeal has arisen as defendant 8.

On the 19th January 1903 Mt. Phula Kunwar sold the property in suit for Rs. 19,000 to three persons : Sah Tejpal, Sah Ram Chandra, and Sah Piare Lal who are now represented by the defen dants 1 to 6.

Plaintiffs 1 to 5 in the suit are sons of Maharaj Singh who was a nephew of Baldeo Singh, and who, it is said, survived Mt. Phula Kunwar by a few days.

These plaintiffs, claiming to be the right heirs to the property along with another brother of theirs named Chandra Bhan Singh (impleaded as de fendant 7) have brought this suit for the purpose of avoiding the sale made by Phula Kunwar in 1903. They have sold their interest in the property in dispute to the sixth plaintiff Sah Moji Ram.

The case for the plaintiffs was that Phula Kunwar had exceeded her powers as a female heir and had conveyed away the property without any necessity, and that the transfer so made was as against them altogether null and void. In order to establish their right to maintain the suit in the presence of Bhanwar Singh, Baldeo' daughter' son (defendant 7), they pleaded in para. 6 of the plaint that Tinder a custom prevailing in the clan of Chauhan Thakurs to which Bal deo Singh belonged, daughters and sons are excluded from inheritance. It was further alleged that this custom obtained in Baldeo Singh' family.

In para. 7 of the plaint it was alleged that Bhanwar Singh, defendant 7, was, in consequence of the custom, no heir to Baldeo Singh, and it was further stated that on the 13th October 1916, Bhanwar Singh had executed a document disclaim ing any right to inherit, and relinquish ing his rights in the property (if he had any) in order to avoid disputes.

The plaintiffs, therefore, claimed to be put into possession of the property by avoidance of the sale, subject to the rights of defendant 7, Chandra Bhan Singh the remaining son of Maharaj, Singh, who had not joined as a plaintiff and had not conveyed his interest in the property to the plaintiff 6, Sah Moji Lal. The first six defendants, the representatives of Phula Kunwar' vendees defended the suit on various pleas. We need only notice here that they denied the custom set up in the plaint. They also denied the right of the plaintiffs to maintain the suit ; and a further plea was that the sale by Phula Kunwar was justified on the ground of legal necessity and that the property had been sold for its fall value. Chandra Bhan Singh, the defendant 7 filed no defence.

Bhanwar Singh, defendant 8, put in a written statement admitting all the facts alleged in the plaint and de claring that he had no rights in the pro perty in suit, which he said, belonged to the plaintiffs. He admitted execution of the deed of relinquishment dated the 13th October 1916, and prayed to be dis charged from the suit on the ground that he had no interest in the litigation. The Subordinate Judge came to no find ing on the issue raised as to the custom set up by the plaintiffs, considering that in view of what he was deciding on the other issues no such finding was re quired.

He upheld the right of the plaintiffs to sue on the ground that Bhanwar Singh had renounced his title in their favour by execution of the document of the 13th October 1916. He was of opinion that full value had been p