SARDAR HUSAIN KHAN Vs. MUHAMMAD IMAM ALI KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE subject of this suit is the talook with the estates of Bhatwamau and other property said to have belonged to Badshah Husain Khan. The case can be stated more briefly and clearly by inserting a pedigree which is not disputed. IMAM ALI KHAN TWO WIVES | ___________________________________________________________________ | | 1ST wife 2nd wife | | | FOUR SONS. | | | | | 1 2 | 3 4 | __________________________________________________ | | | | | | Nizam Ali Tuffazal Husain Aoi Husain Fuzl Husain Ali Bux | died in 1247 F. (1839-40) | | | 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 _________________________________________________ ____________________________________ | | | | | | | Nabi Bux Hadi Husain Tajammal Husain Kazim Husain Abbas Husain Sadek Husain Sajjad Husain died 1858. Predeceased Ali born 1823 The defendant Claimant before the | Bux. died 8th June 1872 born in 1829, British Indian | | died 21st July 1892. Association. | | | TWO SONS. TWO SONS. THREE SONS. | | | _________________ ________________ | | | | | | Badshah Husain Sirdar Husain Dildar Husain Shah Husain Muhammad Imam born about 1839, The plaintiff Ali Khan, eldest d. 21st Nov. 1878 respondent. son. The present appellant. [Two other sons of Kazim Husain: (1) Nawab and (2) Wasiz.]

(2.) THE plaintiff, now respondent, who sues for possession is shown on the pedigree as the brother and heir of Badshah. The original defendant, Kazim Husain, whose eldest son is now the appellant, is shown as the plaintiffs uncle. The talookdar is entered in List II. of the Oudh Estates Act, namely, as one whose estates according to the custom of the family on and before February 13, 1856, ordinarily devolved on a single heir. His title was either conferred or recognised by the Mahomedan government before the annexation. After that event both summary settlements were made with him, and the sunnud was granted to him. He remained legal owner until his death in 1878, when his legal title passed to the plaintiff. At that time Kazim was managing the estates and receiving the rents. The suit was commenced in March, 1889. It is not now contended that the defendant has had any such possession as creates a bar by time. So far the facts of the case are undisputed.

(3.) THE District Judge who tried the cause believed the substance of the defendant's story, and dismissed the suit, but without costs. The Court of Appeal, consisting of the Judicial Commissioner and Additional Judicial Commissioner, reversed that judgment, and gave the plaintiff a decree for possession and mesne profits. Their Lordships have now to decide whether the Court of Appeal is right. They do not find it necessary to go into the numerous intricate discussions of subordinate points which have been elaborated with great care by the learned judges below. They have been much aided by the fulness and accuracy with which all the broader features of the case have been presented by the counsel for the appellant. At the close of Mr. Boss's able argument they had arrived at the conclusion that the apparent title and the real title coincide, and both belong to the plaintiff.