(1.) THIS was a suit brought by Thakoor Jeebnath Singh against Baboo Brumnarain Singh, represented by the Court of Wards, and the Maharanee Heeranath Koowuree, to recover the possession of the raj of Ramgurh, which is an impartible raj. The principal question raised in the suit turned upon the Hindu law of inheritance, and was whether the Plaintiff Jeebnath Singh or Baboo Brumnarain Singh was entitled to succeed the Rajah Trilokenath, who was the last proprietor of the raj. Rajah Trilokenath died childless, and, indeed, a minor. The Appellant Jeebnath Singh claims as father's sister's son, and no doubt he is a nearer relative, in one sense, to the deceased Rajah than the Respondent Brumnarain Singh; going back to the common ancestor, Brumnarain is the great-grandson of that common ancestor.
(2.) IT was admitted by Mr. Leith in argument, that the case which was lately decided by this Tribunal, of Bhydh Ram Singh v. Bhyah Ugur Singh 13 Moore's Ind. Ap. Ca. 371, was an authority decisively against the Appellant's claim. It is immaterial to consider whether Brumnarain was a sapinda or samanodaka, because he was clearly in one of those two classes, and whether in one or the other, he was in the line of male descendants from the common ancestor, and the decision referred to is that this line must be exhausted before bundhoos are resorted to, in order to discover the heir of the last proprietor. Jeebnath Singh is a bundhoo or cognate only, and therefore he cannot take as long as there is either a sapinda or a samanodaka in existence. The case, therefore, to which Mr. Leith referred, in the 13th Moore, has really decided the appeal, so far as that question is concerned, against the Appellant, and that case in principle followed two previous cases, one in the 2nd Moore, p. 132, and the other in the 4th Moore, p. 292.
(3.) IT is difficult to discover the precise ground on which the Plaintiff originally based this claim. The plaint certainly does not state enough to bring him within the rules as laid down in Menu and in the Mitakshara. The plaint says this: "Your petitioner's maternal uncle, Maharajah Luchmeenath Singh Bahadoor, agreeably to the counsel of his father, Maharajah Sidnath Singh Bahadoor, having given in marriage your Petitioner's mother, kept her under his roof, declaring and giving her hopes that if a son be born to her such son will stand in the relation of son's son to his mother's father, and that if at any time occasion arise, he will observe the religious rites of sradh (obsequies), and keep the estate intact; and accordingly your Petitioner, from the day of his birth to the present moment lived with the deceased Maharajahs in common for all the purposes of board, lodging, and worship." Now, in this statement it is not said that the Maharajah Sidnath by any act of his appointed the daughter, nor that the son, her brother, Luchmeenath Singh, did any formal act appointing her to raise a son to his father; the plaint says no more than that the latter gave her hopes that if a son was born to her such son would stand in that relation.