JUDGMENT

Henry Richards, C.J. - This appeal relates to the right to possession of a very valuable estate in Mirzapur, referred to in the plaint as the Agori Barhar Raj. The last male owner was Raja Kesho Saran Shah. The Raja died on the 4th of March 1871, leaving no issue but a young Rani Bed Sarau Kunwari him surviving. The Rani lived until 1913 when she died. A glance at the pedigree filed with the plaint will show that the plaintiff is the eldest son of Babu Jagannath Prasad. This gentleman survived the late Raja but died before the Rani on the 14th of October 1910. Defendant No. 1, Babu Baijnath Prasad, is the rival claimant to the Raj. He was a brother, next in seniority to Babu Jagannath Prasad aforesaid, father of the plaintiff. Defendant No. 2 is a younger brother of defendant No. 1. In the plaint it is alleged that the Rani had made or attempted to make large gifts at the expense of the estate to one Pandit Banarsi Misir, a Brahman, that she had tried to get the consent of the plaintiff's father to her action, that the plaintiff had intervened to prevent his father consenting and that thereupon the Rani turned her attention to the rival claimant and his brother defendant No. 2, with whom she was more successful. That the Rani did make very extensive gifts to Banarsi, is an admitted fact. Banarsi Das was made a defendant to the suit though he is no party to the appeal. On the 4th of November 1912, Rani Bed Saran executed a document purporting to be a codicil to a Will executed by her on the 1st of March 1910, whereby she had appointed the aforesaid Pandit Banarsi and others executors for the performance of her funeral ceremonies. The document recites that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 belong to the same gotra and will become owners of her husband's estate after her death. The lady then declares that these persons will be her successors: "I direct that Babu Baijnath Prasad should occupy the gaddi of the estate and continue to maintain the other members of the family in accordance with the old usage. These persons even came to me...and in proof of faithfulness and obedience they have to-day under a deed of relinquishment admitted my powers to make wakf and to manage the wdkf property and to make transfers under deeds of gift and to make gifts and religious gifts of cash and articles, etc which I, the executrix, have done out of the profits arising from the property of my husbard." By a deed of even date defendants Nos. 1 and 2 completely ratified all that the Rani had done: "It is a matter of great pleasure to us that the said Rani Sahiba has used the said income for good and religious purposes which every Hindu widow is authorised to do....Pandit Banarsi has been in the service of the said Rani since 1893. So far as we have come to know from enquiry as well as from the Rani and from our personal acquaintance we are fully satisfied that the Panditji is a very honest man." It is to be hoped that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 meant all they said and that the Panditji was entitled to the high testimonial given him. A perusal of the document discloses not only the piety of the deceased Rani but also of defendants Nos. 1 and 2. It is perhaps open to the criticism that the executants protest too much. And there is a marked contrast between this document and a complaint addressed to the Collector on the 17th June 1896 by the father of the plaintiff and the two defendants (see A. 80) in which they bitterly complain that the Rani is destroying and wasting the estate and has given Rs. 99,000 in cash besides other extravagant grants to the priest. It may well be doubted that defendants would have executed the deed of November 1912, if defendant No. 1 believed that he was entitled to succeed to the gaddi on the death of the Rani. On the 4th of November 1912, the Rani executed a deed of relinquishment in favour of Baijnath Prasad, defendant No. 1, who was declared owner of the gaddi. By way of proof of consent Bindeshwari Prasad executed the docu