Lord Russell Of Killowen.:-

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a decree of the Chief Court of Oudh dated 9th September 1936, which reversed a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Bahraich, dated 31st July 1934, and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. It is necessary to set forth the history of the matter in some detail, in order to make plain the nature of the plaintiff's claim and the circumstances in which it arises.

Raja Mohammad Siddique Khan (herein, after referred to as the testator) was the owner of the Nanpara Estate in Bahraich, Oudh. He made a will dated 8th January 1906, and died, sine prole, on 30th December 1907. There were many claimants to the estate, some relying on the will and others contesting it. The estate had since the month of February 1905, been under the management of the Court of Wards, and, in view of these rival claims, the Court of Wards instituted, on 28th April 1908, an interpleader suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, of Bahraich. The suit was at a later date transferred to the Additional Subordinate Judge of Lucknow.

The original defendants to the suit were nine in number. Rani Qamar Zamani (defendant 1) contested the will and claimed the testator's property as his senior widow. Banis Saltanat, Dilafza, Champa, and Nasim Sahri (defendants 2-5) claimed both in virtue of their rights as widows of the testator, and of rights conferred by his will. Rani Kaniz (defendant 6) contested the will, and claimed as elder sister of the testator. Rani Sarfaraz (defendant 7) did not file any written statement and the suit proceeded against her ex parte. On 9th March 1909, Rani Saltanat (purporting to act under the will of the testator) adopted the present appellant, and he was subsequently added as a defendant (No. 13) to the interpleader suit. He claimed to be entitled to the property of the testator both as sole heir and under the will. It is unnecessary to set out the provisions of the will in this judgment, because (as hereinafter appears) the rights which the appellant seeks to establish in this appeal depend not upon the provisions of the will, but upon the terms of certain compromises sanctioned by decrees in the interpleader suit. To these compromises and decrees reference must now be made.

On 7th September 1910, a deed of compromise was entered into between Ram Qamar, Rani Kaniz, and the appellant by which it was stated that they had settled their differences and disputes in the interpleader suit upon the terms therein set forth. Since the true construction of these terms of compromise then entered into, (and subsequently sanctioned by the decree hereinafter mentioned) is a necessary step in the determination of one aspect of this appeal, they must be stated at length and verbatim. They run as follows :

I. The Court shall declare Rani Mohammad Kaniz Begam, (defendant 6) and Rani Mohammad Sarfaraz Begam of Muhamdi (defendant 7) entitled to possession of the whole of the Taluqa of Nanpara except as hereinafter provided, in equal shares for their lives dividing all divisible profits equally after payment of the one-fourth share of profits hereinafter provided for payment to defendant 1. In the event of the death of Rani Mohammad Kaniz Begam without leaving male issue, her husband, Raja Mohammad Mumtaz Ali Khan of Utraula, if surviving will take her share for his life. On his death, or if he died before the Rani, and the Rani shall have no male issue then on the death of the Rani that share will revert to Rani Mohammad Sarfaraz Begam, if surviving, or if she does not survive then to Saadat Ali Khan or his heirs. On the death of Rani of Mohamdi, Saadat Ali Khan and his heirs will succeed to the estate in possession of Rani Mohammad Sarfaraz Begam.

II. If Rani Mohammad Kaniz Begam die leaving male issue, her eldest son will succeed, and in such case the estate will be equally divided between Saadat Ali Khan and such eldest son.

III. Rani Qamar Zamani Begam, (defendant 1) shall be declared entitled to and de