Sir Madhavan Nair.-

This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the Full Bench of the Chief Court of Oudh dated 10th May 1846, which, on appeal by the defendant, set aside the judgment and decree of the Additional Civil Judge of Lucknow dated 21st March 1940. After the appeal had been filed in the Privy Council respondent 2 was made a party.

[2] The appeal relates to the right of succession to a taluqa known as the Sissendi Estate and to other moveable and immovable non-taluqa properties left by Raja Chandra Shekhar and his widow Rani Subhadra Kuer.

[3] The main question for decision is whether the adoption of respondent 2 by the late Rani Subhadra Kuer after the death of her husband is a valid adoption.

[4] The following genealogical table will explain the relationship of the parties. Pedigree No. 1 is the pedigree of the Taluqdars of Seasendi (Sessendi Pedigree), and Pedigree No. II is the pedigree of the family of the Rani Subhadra Kuer and of Vijay Kumar (Respondent No. 2).

[5] The Sissendi Estate is one of the Taluqas which were exempt from confiscation after the mutiny of 1857. Raja Kashi Prasad was the first taluqdar of Sissendi. The estate was settled with him during the second summary settlement after the annexation of Oudh and his name was entered in lists 1, 3, and 5 prepared under S. 8, Oudh Estates Act (I of 1869).

[6] In 1866, Raja Kashi Prasad adopted one Ram Krishna, the second son of his cousin Madho Prasad, when he was about five or six years old and renamed him Chandra Shekhar. On the death of Raja Kashi Prasad in 1873, Chandra Shekhar succeeded to the taluqa and other properties left by him. Some time between the years 1875 and 1880, the date is uncertain, Raja Chandra Shekhar married Rani Subhadra Kuer who was a year older than himself. Rani Umed Kuer, the adoptive mother of Raja Chandra Shekhar, died on 6th February 1893, After certain proceedings in Court to which reference will be made later, Raja Chandra Shekhar was found to be of unsound mind in 1897, whereupon the Court of Wards took charge of the estate. The Raja died intestate and childless on 13th February 1923. Subsequent to his death, the estate was released in favour of the Rani who succeeded him as his widow. On 14th July 1929, under a "consent in writing" alleged to have been given by Raja Chandra Shekhar in 1889, contained in three letters, Exs. 189-191, dated 20th April 1889, 7th August 1839 and 16th November 1889, respectively, the Rani publicly adopted as a son to her deceased husband, Vijoy Kumar (minor) grandson of her brother Faqirey Lal. He is respondent 2 in the appeal. Rani Subhadra Kuer died on 13th November 1934, and, on her death, the Court of Wards took possession of the taluqa and other properties left by the Rani on behalf of the minor adopted son, and represented him as defendant in the suit.

[7] The suit out of which the appeal arises was instituted on 7th October 1937, by plaintiffs 1 and 2, the sons of Sheo Prasad, the brother of Raja Kashi Prasad, the adoptive father of Raja Chandra Shekhar. They are now dead and are represented by their sons, appellants 1 to 5. Plaintiff 3 is the legal representative of one Parbati Devi, to whom, in consideration of an agreement to finance the litigation, the plaintiffs transferred a portion of the properties. He is appellant 6 before the Board.

[8] The claimants to the properties are governed by the Benares School of Hindu law. Plantiffs l and 2 claimed the properties on the ground that on the death of the last Taluqdar, Raja Chandra Shekhar who died childless, his widow, Rani Subhadra Kuer, succeeded to the taluqa properties under the Oudh Estates Act, 1869 and to non-taluqa properties as the Hindu widow and that on her death they, as reversioners, are entitled to succeed to all the properties in the suit. It is not denied that plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the heirs of Raja Chandra Shekhar as his immediate reversioners, and would be entitled to succeed to the properties on the death of Rani Subh