BHAIYA SHER BAHADUR Vs. BAIYA GANGA BAKHSH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from a judgment and decree dated the 26th February 1906 of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh, which affirmed a judgment and decree dated the 3rd of January 1905 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Gonda, dismissing the plaintiff s suit.

(2.) The action out of which the appeal arises was instituted on the 3rd of April 1902 by the plaintiff as eldest son and heir of his fathe Jang Bahadur Singh, by a Mahomedan woman, claiming to recover the possession of the several villages mentioned in the Schedule annexed to the Statement of Claim, same forming part of an estate called the "Balrampur estate" which had been bequeathed to the plaintiffs father by his, the plaintiff s, paternal grandfather, the Maharajah of Balrampur, by a icodicil dated the 15th of March 1878 to the last will of the Maharajah. Possession of these villages had been taken in the year 1899 by the first defendant, and since then retained by him. Mesne profits were claimed in respect of this possession, and a claim was added to recover possession of the moveable and immoveable property mention ed in Schedules B and C, also annexed to the Statement of Claim, or in the alternative the plaintiff s legal share thereof, on the ground that the same was property acquired by the plaintiff said father, with an additional claim for further relief.

(3.) The first defedant, Bhaiya Ganga Bakhsh Singh filed a written statement alleging that the plaintiff was the issue of a Mahomedan woman with whom his, the said defendant s father, Jang Bahadur Singh, had had illegal intercourse, as were also the defendants numbered 2, 3, and 4, and that her nikah had never taken place, that his father followed the Hindu religion bigottedly, and was a Hindu from his boyhood up to his death, that he married for the first time a Hindu lady of a Surajbansi Chhattri family, that the defendant No. 1 was the only child of that marriage, is the only legitimate son and heir at law of his father, and is consequently under the provision of the said codicil entitled to the allowance therein mentioned.