DULAHIN JADUNATH KUAR Vs. BISHESHAR BAKHSH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In accordance with the view expressed in the judgment of this Board dated 4 December 1930(.), the issue raised in the third appeal has been reheard before a fuller Board. By that judgment it was decided that the succession to the Taluka Gangwal is governed by the Oudh Estates Act and in particular by S. 22 (10), which, as amended in 1910, is as follows: (.) [This is reported in AIR 1931 PC 24-Ed.] "(10) Or in default of or on the death of such mother, then to the nearest male agnate according to the rule of lineal primogeniture, subject as aforesaid."

(2.) The last talukdar was Raja Suraj Prakash Singh, and the plaintiff's pedigree shows Bhaya Partap Singh as their common ancestor, and in accordance with the previous judgment the plaintiff must be held to have established that, in blood relationship, he is the nearest male blood relation according to the rule of lineal primogeniture of Raja Suraj, the last male holder of the taluka. It is clear from the context that this finding relates to physical blood relationship and does not exclude the possibility-raised by the issue in the third appeal-of the legal right of succession, so far as expressed as blood relationship, having been lost, e.g., by adoption.

(3.) The sole question in the third appeal is whether the plaintiff has proved that he is an "agnate" of the propositus within the meaning of S. 22 (10); if so, he is admitted to be the nearest male agnate according to the rule of lineal primogeniture. In the first place, their Lordships are clearly of opinion that the meaning of "male agnate" for the purposes of the section cannot be determined without recourse to the ordinary law which would govern the succession apart from the statute-in this case the Hindu law of succession according to the rules of the Mitakshara. The term "agnate" is not a term of art in the English legal system; in the English language, though not in frequent use, it is a known term used to indicate relationship on the father's side or exclusively through males. In their Lordships' opinion, it is a word expressive of relationship, similar to son" or "brother," to which the rule of construction laid down in Raghuraj Chandra V/s. Subhadra Kunwar, AIR 1928 PC 87, falls to be applied. The only express prescriptions of the Act relative to "male agnate" are that it denotes only legitimate relatives (S. 2), and that it applies only to najib-ul-tarfain, i.e., those of noble birth on both sides (S. 21). Subject to these qualifications, the meaning of "male agnate" falls to be ascertained by the personal law of the individual, to whom the succession is to be established.