ABDUL HALIM KHAN Vs. RAJA SAADAT ALI KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in this case is the claimant to and large and valuable talukdari estate in Oudh, known as Taluka Nanpara, the succession to which is governed by Act 1 of 1869. Respondent 1 was at the date of the suit in possession of the estate, and unless the appellant is able to show as better title in himself, it is admitted that he cannot succeed.

(2.) The last full owner was Raja Muhammad Siddiq Khan, who died without issue on 30 December 1907. He left four widows him surviving, and by his will gave successive authorities to each of them to adopt a son. Respondent 1 is in as the adopted son of the second widow, Rani Saltanat. The appellant claims to oust him as the adopted son of the fourth widow, Rani Champa, on the ground that his (the appellant's) adoption was the only valid one. The other respondents are in possession of parts of the estate under a compromise with respondent 1. The main question in the suit was whether the adoption of the appellant, the factum of which is admitted, was valid, and the first line of defence was that Rani Champa had been remarried to one Sher Mahomed Khan before the adoption of the appellant, and that for this reason his adoption was invalid. The question of the remarriage was contested at great length in the Oudh Court, as is testified by the bulky record now before the Board. The appellant, in addition to denying the remarriage in fact, asserted that, previous to the date on which it was alleged to have taken place, Sher Mahomed Khan had been married to the sister of Rani Champa, and this was put forward as making the story of the latter's remarriage impossible, it being admittedly contrary to the Mahomedan law for a man to be the husband of two sisters.

(3.) The trial Judge and the Court of appeal have concurrently held that the remarriage of Rani Champa with Sher Mahomed Khan, on a date prior to the adoption of the appellant, is established by the evidence. They are also agreed that the alleged previous marriage with the Rani's sister, the burden of proving which was clearly upon the appellant, is not established. These findings must, in accordance with the recognized practice of the Board, be held conclusive as to the fact of the remarriage.