RAJAH MOKHAM SINGH Vs. RAJAH RUP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Respondent is the younger and only brother of Mohendra Singh, Rais of the ancient impartible estate of Bhara or Bhauri, who died in September, 1871, without leaving a son, but leaving a widow, Rani Baisni, who took possession of and held her husband's estate under an alleged title as widow. The Respondent instituted a suit against her in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Mainpuri to recover possession of the estate as impartible and descending to him under the ancient usage of the family, contending that after the decease of a Rajah of Bhara his nearest and eldest male heir succeeds him to the exclusion of the other male heirs and the total exclusion of women. The suit was dismissed by the First Court on the 25th of September, 1878, and the Respondent's appeal to the High Court at Allahabad was dismissed on the 7th of May, 1880.

(2.) ON the 13th of March, 1882, an instrument of sale upon which the question in this appeal arises was executed by the Respondent. It recites the institution of the suit against the widow, its dismissal, and the dismissal of the appeal, and proceeds as follows: Thus arose the necessity for filing an appeal to the Privy Council. It is clear I have not a pice, and my only hope for justice lies in an appeal to the Privy Council. I have therefore with entreaties got Rajah Loke Indar Singh (since deceased, and now represented by the Appellant, Rajah Mohkam Singh), Sheikh Nasrat Hussain (Lala Bhikhari Das, Munshi Har Narain), Bibi Chunni Kuar, and Kuar Dharam Singh, persons belonging to the first class given below, to consent that they should meet the costs of the Privy Council, including security, by way of a help to me, and should in lieu thereof be the proprietor of an eighth share of the property involved in the case with the exception of those articles. They have accepted the proposal, and deposited the security and the translation fees, and have undertaken to pay the other expenses of the Privy Council appeal.

(3.) THE appeal to Her Majesty in Council was successful. The decrees of both the Lower Courts were reversed, and it was decreed that the Plaintiff (the present Respondent) should recover possession of the estate: see Rajah Rup Singh v. Rani Baisni and the Collector of Etawah Law Rep. 11 Ind. A p. 149. On the 13th of August, 1884, he was put in possession of it, and having refused to give to the purchasers any part of the eighth share, a suit was, on the 31st of July, 1885, brought against him to recover it.