KEOLAPATI Vs. RAJA AMAR KRISHNA NARAIN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Their Lordships have already intimated in their opinion that the questions for decision upon this appeal are concluded by concurrent findings of fact on the part of the Courts in India. They have reported accordingly to His Majesty in Council advising that the appeal should be dismissed and they have directed the appellants to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal. It remains to state the reasons for their report. The claim is to the taluqdari estate of Ramnagar in the district of Bara-Banki in the province of Oudh and to other property, moveable and immovable, left by Raja Sarabjit Singh, who died on 20 December 1899. The claimant is Kurshed Jahan Begum, who will herein be referred to as "the plaintiff" though her financier has joined with her as co-plaintiff: her suit was brought on 7 February 1931, in the Chief Court of Oudh. It has been dismissed by the trial Judge whose decree has been affirmed by an appellate Bench, and she now appeals. The defendants (respondents before the Board) may be shortly described as representatives of Udit Narain Singh, who had obtained possession of the properties in suit soon after the death of Raja Sarabjit Singh as being his only son and who died in 1927.

(2.) The matters in issue between these parties may be simply stated as two. First, whether a certain document bearing date 1 July 1898, and purporting to be a will made by Raja Sarabjit Singh in favour of the plaintiff's mother, Qadir Jahan Begum, is a valid testamentary instrument. Secondly, whether the plaintiff, whose father was Raja Sarabjit Singh, was the legitimate daughter and heir of her mother, Qadir Jahan, who died in 1909. A third contention was advanced before the Courts in Oudh and before their Lordships. It was based on a passage (para. 10) in a deed of sale dated 7 November 1902 executed by Qadir Jahan, which was said to have effect as a devise or bequest of the taluqdari estate to the plaintiff. The Courts in India have rejected this contention: their Lordships intimated at the hearing that it cannot be accepted and it need not be further noticed. There is no other testamentary disposition of the property in suit made by her mother in the plaintiff's favour and it is not contended that the plaintiff (unless she be legitimate) can inherit from her mother according to the Shia school of Mahomedan law. It is essential to the plaintiff's case that she should establish the marriage of her parents.

(3.) The case made by the plaintiff is that Raja Sarabjit Singh was converted to Islam about 1852-4, before the annexation of Oudh by the British; and that he married Qadir Jahan, a Muslim lady, on 25 November 1872. In proof of the marriage the plaintiff relies upon a deed (nikahnama) which bears that date. It is in Persian with Arabic quotations. It refers to the bridegroom as " Ghulam Mohammad alias Raja Munwa Sarabjit Singh." It stipulates for Rs. 75,000 as prompt dower and half of Ramnagar Dhameri estate as deferred dower. It has two seals purporting to be those of the moulvis acting for each party. It bears what purports to be the signature in Hindi of the Raja and the signatures of four other witnesses.