Sir John Beaumont.-

These are consolidated appeals from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, dated 1st November 1939, which affirmed a decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Mainpuri, dated 26th January 1933, though on grounds different from those on which the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge was based.

[2] The subject-matter in dispute is an impartible estate in the district of Etawah, known as the Partabner Raj. It is not disputed by the parties to this appeal that the Partabner Raj is an ancient Raj, and that down to the death of Raja Hukum hereinafter mentioned it was an impartible estate governed by the rule of lineal primogeniture. The estate was owned at the time of his death, which occurred on the 17th May 1925, by Raja Hukum Tej Pratap Singh (hereinafter called "Raja Hukum") who died leaving a widow, and a mother, Rani Baisni Madho Kunwar (hereinafter called "Rani Baisni"), but no natural descendants. Shortly before his death, Raja Hukum had adopted a son, Raja Maha Vindeshri Pratap Singh (hereinafter called "Raja Maha"), the minor son of Madho Singh, who was a member of the family of Raja Hukum. Soon after the death of Raja Hukum a suit was filed by his widow and there were mutation proceedings, the question at issue in such suit and proceedings being as to the validity of the adoption of Raja Maha. These proceedings resulted in the adoption being accepted by the interested parties, and as a result, the Revenue Court sanctioned mutation in favour of Raja Maha by an Order dated 29th April 1927.

[3] By a notification issued under S. 15 of the United Provinces Court of Wards Act, 1912, the Court of Wards assumed the management of the Partabner Raj on behalf of Raja Maha as from the 14th December 1926.

[4] On 18th February 1931, Raja Maha was murdered by his natural father, Madho Singh. He died a minor and unmarried.

[5] The suit in which these appeals arise, namely, suit No. 19 of 1931, was brought by Sheorakhan Singh, who claimed to be the senior male member of the senior branch of the family of Raja Hukum, and accordingly entitled to the estate under the rule of lineal primogeniture. He died during the pendency of the suit and his son, Shyam Pratap Singh, the appellant in one of these consolidated appeals, was substituted as plaintiff and is hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff". In the suit Sheorakhan claimed that the properties mentioned in lists "A", "B", ''C" and "D" annexed to the plaint had descended to him as the senior member of the senior branch of the family. The effective defendant was Kunwar Kalka Singh, who was defendant 4 and is the appellant in the second of these appeals. He is hereinafter referred to as "the defendant". His case was that he was the senior member of the senior branch of the family.

[6] At the trial the learned Subordinate Judge held that of the properties specified in lists "a" to "D" annexed to the plaint, the properties in lists "A" and "C" were part of the said impartible Raj subject to the rule of lineal primogeniture, that according to this rule the person entitled to succeed to the Raj was not the plaintiff but the defendant, whose claim as the senior member of the senior branch of the family had been satisfactorily proved, and that the properties in lists "B" and "D" were not part of the impartible Raj but were governed by the ordinary Hindu law of succession and devolved on Rani Baisni as the mother of the adoptive father of the last holder of the Partabner Raj. Accordingly, the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit with costs.

[7] There had been consolidated with the said suit another suit No. 26 of 1932, which had been instituted by Rani Baisni, in which she claimed that no part of the estate was impartible, or subject to the rule of lineal primogeniture, and that she was entitled to succeed to the whole property under the ordinary law of Hindu succession. As already mentioned, her claim succeeded to the extent of the properties in lis