Baboo Gunesh Dutt Singh v. Maharaja Moheshur Si..., Privy Council, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The provided opinion contains material from two interleaved strands of the record. Both strands are summarized below using only information explicitly present in the text.

Procedural matter concerning an award attached to a deed of reference

The text discusses an award that had been attached to a deed of reference. It is unclear from the fragment whether the attachment was original or whether the award had become detached at some point. The court considered objections that the award was not final and noted uncertainty about the extent to which a Court of Appeal could enter into questions that arguably should have been raised and disposed of originally in the Zillah Court. The consequence, as stated in the opinion, would be that their Lordships would advise Her Majesty to remand the original decree of the Sudder Court (which had directed that the award should be taken off the file of the Zillah Court) and to set aside a second decree of the Sudder Court. Their Lordships also opined that a sum subsequent to the first decree, including the costs in the present proceedings, ought to be allowed to the appellants.

Baboo Gupesh Dutt Singh (family succession / deed of gift dispute)

The opinion reports a dispute about succession to a Raj (and Zemindary) in Tirhoot. The factual narrative explicitly states:

There existed a family usage "for fourteen generations" by which succession to the Raj zemindary of Tirhoot had uniformly descended "entire to a single male heir" to the exclusion of other family members.
Madhoo (Madhoo) Singh, believing himself near death, executed a deed dated 18 June 1807 (the text gives that date repeatedly) transferring the Raj and Zemindary to his eldest son Chutur Singh, and by the same instrument made provisions (Pergunnahs / allowances) for other sons.
Madhoo Singh presented petitions (one to the Zillah Court of Tirhoot and another to the Collector) seeking that the transfers effected by the deed be carried into effect; the Collector made an order on 12 August 1807 directing the transfers to be entered and ordered tenants to pay rents according to the deed; the Zillah Judge communicated that Chutur Singh should be put into possession.
Madhoo Singh continued to live until November 1807; no suggestion of fraud or invalidity of the instrument was made by him in that interval, and the deed was acted upon by the authorities and taken to have been carried into execution.
After Madhoo Singh's death, Chutur Singh took possession. Another brother (referred to in the record as bringing a suit in the Patna Court of Tirhoot) claimed a one‑third share of the property and instituted litigation challenging the validity of Madhoo Singh's deed of gift to Chutur Singh.
The defendant in that suit relied on the deed of gift and on the family usage by which the eldest son became proprietor of the Raj; the possession and the entries made by authorities were treated as confirming the deed.
The record contains further events: a deed of 4 September 1816 by which Chutur Singh abandoned a claim to thirty‑three villages (described as a distinct and smaller grant), references to possession by Gobind Singh in minority of a Pergunnah, and other procedural steps and appeals through district and Sudder courts. The opinion records that portions of these matters did not, in the view of their Lordships, affect the principal legal effect of Madhoo Singh's deed as carried into execution by the authorities.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether an award attached to a deed of reference was of sufficient consequence or had become detached, and what consequences flow from that determination in the appeal (i.e., whether the Sudder Court's decrees should be remitted or set aside).
Whether, in the dispute reported as Baboo Gupesh Dutt Singh, the family usage by which succession to the Raj zemindary of Tirhoot uniformly descended to a single male heir (to the exclusion of other members) operated to validate the transfer to the eldest son.
Whether Madhoo Singh's deed of 18 June 1807 transferring the Raj and Zemindary to Chutur Singh was valid, acted upon by the authorities, and carried into execution — and whether, in light of those facts, the subsequent challenges to the deed supplied any ground for the present appeal.
Whether questions raised on appeal could properly be examined by the Appellate Court where they might originally have been raised in the Zillah Court (i.e., the extent to which the Appellate Court may enter into matters arguably within the primary jurisdiction of the lower court).

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion contains specific procedural and substantive pleadings; the parties' positions as presented in the record are summarized below. The opinion does not consistently label which side is "appellant" or "respondent" at every point; the summaries below are tied to the statements of the pleadings as recorded in the opinion.

Plaintiff's (challenger's) arguments

The plaintiff (a brother who instituted a suit after Madhoo Singh's death) alleged that he was entitled to a one‑third share of the estate and challenged the validity of Madhoo Singh's deed of gift to Chutur Singh.
In pleading, the plaintiff asserted that the deed of gift in favor of Chutur Singh was not valid and sought to have it disregarded so that his share might be recognized.

Defendant's (recipient of deed / Chutur Singh's) arguments

The defendant relied upon Madhoo Singh's deed of gift transferring the Raj and Zemindary to Chutur Singh and insisted that the Pergunnahs and possessions granted by that deed were properly his.
The defendant asserted the family usage according to which the eldest son became the proprietor of the Raj and its appendages; this custom was put forward to support the defendant's possession and title.
The defendant pointed to the official acts — the Collector's order to enter transfers and to tenants to pay rents according to the deed, and the Zillah Court's communication that Chutur Singh should be put in possession — as confirming that the deed was considered valid and had been carried into execution.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's reasoning proceeds in two discernible strands corresponding to the procedural award matter and the family succession / deed dispute. The following recounts the court's steps of analysis strictly as contained in the opinion.

Procedure concerning the award attached to the deed of reference

The court noted uncertainty as to whether the award was originally attached to the deed of reference or whether it had become detached; it observed that the facts on that point were not entirely clear from the proceedings as sent up.
The court declined to enter into all other objections taken against the award "not being final," indicating doubt as to how far an Appellate Court could enter into such matters when they might originally have been raised and disposed of in the Zillah Court.
Because one particular objection prevailed (the opinion states "there being one real objection, that objection must prevail"), the court determined the appropriate consequence for the decrees previously entered in the Sudder Court: the original decree directing the award to be taken off the Zillah Court file should be remitted and the second decree set aside.
The court concluded that, given those circumstances, the sum payable subsequent to the first decree, including the costs incurred in the present proceedings, ought to be allowed to the appellants.

Analysis of the family succession and deed of gift

The court identified matters not in dispute and those effectively removed from controversy by the evidence, then turned to the central contested questions.
The court described the events: Madhoo Singh succeeded to the Zemindary, made a deed on 18 June 1807 transferring the Raj and Zemindary to his eldest son Chutur Singh and providing Pergunnahs to other sons; Madhoo subsequently presented petitions to the Collector and the Zillah Court; the Collector ordered the transfers to be entered and tenants to pay rents according to the deed; the Zillah Judge notified that Chutur Singh should be put into possession.
The court emphasized that Madhoo Singh continued to live and that no suggestion of fraud or invalidity in the instrument had been made by him; the authorities had treated the instrument as valid and had carried it into execution, and possession was taken and confirmed in accordance with the deed.
Given those facts — the making of the deed, the subsequent official acts giving effect to it, and the absence of any suggestion of fraud or invalidity — the court concluded there was "no doubt" as to the effect and validity of that instrument as it had been acted upon by the authorities.
The court examined later events in the record (including a later deed of 4 September 1816 by which Chutur Singh abandoned certain claims to thirty‑three villages and references to other partitions or allowances). The court observed there was no apparent connection between certain later instruments and the central suit such that those later acts altered the legal effect of the 1807 deed carried into execution.
On balance, and after a careful examination of the whole proceedings, their Lordships found the "utter absence of any ground for the present appeal."

Holding and Implications

Core Rulings

Procedural award matter: Their Lordships directed that, because a controlling objection prevailed, they would advise Her Majesty to remit the original decree of the Sudder Court (which had ordered the award to be taken off the Zillah Court file) and to set aside the second decree of the Sudder Court. They also held that the sum subsequent to the first decree, including the costs of the present proceedings, ought to be allowed to the appellants.
Family succession / deed dispute (Baboo Gupesh Dutt Singh reporting): After examining the deed of 18 June 1807, the official acts giving it effect (Collector's order to enter transfers and orders to tenants; Zillah Judge's communication to put Chutur Singh in possession), and the absence of any suggestion of fraud or invalidity, their Lordships concluded there was an "utter absence of any ground for the present appeal." The opinion thus communicates that the appeal lacked merit in relation to the validity and execution of Madhoo Singh's deed.

Implications

The direct legal consequences stated in the opinion are limited to the parties and decrees before the court. Specifically:

In the procedural award matter, the consequence ordered was remittal of the original Sudder Court decree and setting aside of a later Sudder decree, together with an award of costs to the appellants for the sum related to the first decree. The opinion does not purport to establish a new general precedent beyond the disposition of the decrees in the particular case.
In the family succession dispute, the court's conclusion that the deed was valid and carried into execution — and the finding of no ground for the appeal — resolves the dispute in favor of the party whose title and possession were founded on the deed and confirmed by administrative acts. The opinion does not state any broader doctrinal rule beyond the application of the facts (making of the deed, official recognition, absence of fraud) to uphold the instrument in these circumstances.

This summary is based exclusively on the text content provided in the opinion. Where the opinion text was fragmentary, the summary reports only those facts, arguments, and rulings explicitly recorded in the supplied material.

Show full summary ...

Baboo Gunesh Dutt Singh v. Maharaja Moheshur Singh, Baboo Basdeo Singh, and Baboo Kirut Singh (India)

BABUO 0. D. SINGH W. MAElARAJ.4 >I. YIlOH [1856] VI POORB IND. UP., ill

good one m rtrelf, iz eiuuoi hare the foma r h o h rhis [I611 Regulation would haw

mreaaarj to decide upon it &t ali. becrure the facta are not quite eleai.

lhst the peticiom were ariginellr atraohed t u the deed of reference &B i m n t i m

111 the dead of reference It mav'be that powbiy the7 milj h e i e oeen nled iii T

Z.llalr Court along wilh ;he deed itaell , and nor con.i&ed to have been of sotFcie

imgortarce to Le sent hcrc, or it may be thai the? 1m-e becoirie deiaehed in 6ome n

Lhat has .lot been mcounted for Aithough the question ma) very fairly have aris

upon whom the on%# lap of shar ing the fact one W J or the other, yet tiir fnct 16 not

It may 1

opinioii with reqmt to the Emand pomt.

All %he orher objections t h s t h a w been taken 8 6 t a the award not being final.

their Lordship8 do not enter into; i t map be doubtful hon far a Court of Apped

could enter into t h a t question et all, whether It ought not to h a x b m originally

raised in the Zillah Coutt, and disposed of there Nanp difficuhes of t h a t k m d

m&v a i i i e but it 16 not necearary to mp an0h:ng upon the subject; thele being ono

&a1 objdction, that objection must prerail. The consequence vi11 be that sheir

Lmdehqs will adriac Her M+ty to r e m m the orig~nal deoreeaf t1.e Sudder Court,

nhioh directed that the a m r d should be taken off the file oi the Zillah Court, axld

to aet aside ti;e seaond deeree of the Sudder Court.

Under the ciroumetances, rheir Lardehips 818 of opinion that t k emu1 subsequent

$0 the firnt decree, including the costs here, aught to be alloned to the Ippcllsuts.

[I641 BlBOO GUPjESH DUTT SIXGH,-App

SINGH, BABOO BAODEO SINGH. B

opondeets * [June 40, 21, 22, 18553.

On A p p d j i u m t h e ,Swfdn 1Jsrnnny A8aen.l.rt " t C d c e r m

Faalily usage for fourteer. generations, by which the suooeaaion to the Raj zemio-

dary of Tirhoot had oniformlp dweended entire to a single male heir, to t,ir

exclusion of the other membere of the fami

A L ~ . t ~ n > for the Raja in ponsrsrio~i, in hie li

deed the Raj title and dsmain to his alvesr

iirld yond, m d R deed so amisninz the Rai To a n eldert oon f w o r l s i o n hein,,

l l w q w s t k n i n this w i t w s , whether the anccrtrel estate of the Raj zemindart

-~ ~~ ~~~

* Presrid: The Righr Hon. T Pemberton Leigh. the Rlnht Hon. Lord J u a r ~ c r

Lmght Hruor, the Kigt t Hon Sir Pdna rd Rpan, and the &e!$ Hu:i $he Lord .Iusiice

Iurner and the Right Hon. Sir b h r Pattesoii.

71 l O O R B IND. APP.. 1M BABOO GUSBSH DUTT BINGH

ot Sircar Tirhaot, situats m txs Uzst

Raj dornam, and a b such descended e

other mellihem of the f a n i l i . or *&E

eLcordirg 60 tile usual LUUMB of I X C C ~

Reapondent mamtnined the farmer. ur.d

ts of Tirhoot and Puineah, oonmtuted e.

IB to a single neii t o th* exclusion 'if the

isible among the DO heirs in equal sherea,

n provided bp the Hindoo I m The first

e Appellant the latter, of theae propmtions

.Appellant e x w e d i d to this Pergunnah

&bind Sizgh, n1;cged that the dnnie

The Appellant, although admitting the grant of thia Pergunmh to his father.

iimdc under a dead. dated ihe 14th of

@n the 18th 01 J u w 1807, Msdmo R i q h bring dangerwady ill. end before

learing his home for Benarcs. executed EL deed of xif t of the Raj and Zemindary to

L'. \14HIR43.% YUHESH'CR d l J G H [1855] V I MOORE IND APP, 168

Chutur Singh, his eldest son, making p-orision for his other eone by gr8n:r of

Pergunnshs, by wsy of Babao allowances; two petitions mere about the 'ame tme

presented iu 1 . i ~ name, one to the Zillsli Cour t of Tirhwt, and die arher to the

Colleetor of that distinct. Both these petitions stated, tliar he bad giien ch. Rsj

and Zemmdary, and all his property and effects, to Chutur Singh. and had giveii

t, hie o h e r ems. &rut Si+, Gobind Smgh, and Ramaput Singh, yroprietarp

deeds fo r d,fferent Pergunnahs, fa r cheir ruppon ss Babooa. Tire petirion to :he

Zillah Court prayod that Chutur Ymgh. m i g x be allrwed to &ppeer arid aonduct in

his own name all C B ~ them pendirg in nhieh Madhoo Singh was Plaintis or De.

hat t o the Collector prayed that Xadhoo Eingh's name might bc

ue papers, and Clivtur SirgWs neme entered in 113 aread, end

ernmcnt re~enue might be received from him

ngh died in the latter part of the pear [168] ]Sui, 'hereup

Singh rook poxmxion o i *he Raj In the moirfh of Nq-, 1511, &rut

brochor, aet up 6 claim and instituted 8 suit against him :n the Patna

Court of Tirbaot, claiming & third part of the entire proper:?, alleging

acre only three brothers enti-led to share the property. By iiiil pla:n ie nn-

pesched the validity of the deed of sift bg Xladhoo Singh in Chbtur Singh'i farour

In hta m m ~ i to this plaint the Defendant relied uyoo the deed of gift of the Raj

br hlsdhoo Smph ~n hid favour, and insisred that Pergunnah Jedas VBS lren to

d ~ n 1119 appeal, and acknowledge the mmlid i ry of his claim,

carried into efieei.

ingh, b? hia an~wer asserred that hm hrotlier. Rmdeo

and the commencement e? rhe family the iolloning custom had prevailed nsniely.

ihat the F1de.t son becbme the proprietor of ihe Raj and all its appendages and

aimed thasthe allegations o i the Plaintiff B B to the ~ a m m Perpmahr

mt hewig been given at the timra of inventing the recipients

i rbread xere false and !utile, and that h d i i o o Sinrh never

. or vzllage, t o any son on the o c o s i m of such i&mture;

f .he family usage, according to wlmh nothing but jexela and

father got sa9 mere17 &s the right of e, Baboo's aa;ntenence. and accordingly

Madhoo Smglr, nhen he r w about to forsake the Irorld, lollowed the wage and gave

the eldest 80" Chutur Sin& all the Raj and ita right8 rh ich he had by the fa+

VI XOORE IUD. UP., 176

of :he Brahtniincal thread II contrary to rule arid uasge, sod nothing has been

f o w d t o d j o w its au:ientioitT; far t t e poareiman of the Plaintiff is eeoordm,o t o the

documrty" of \ I sd im Singh. and not by any other documeu: and by rite Hindov

law, if en' deed ai partition 'be put ir execution, and any m e iake anytiiing

under I:. 1;e u,dl have poisession of only that and nothing more, and my deaiaion

rhauld 1)s according -0 the Hindaa Isr, upon which :he Plaintiff founda hie clail-;

and it 18 [176] u t neceasar? f~ entei into rhe queition o i family "rage in thii

&r c a m in ah ich the Defmrianta are p m h , die question of

full? tried!' The % u t of the appeilent w w aooordiri&

i e Appellant sppealed from thib dear- to t h e Suddei Dewonny ldowlut of

The appeal o & m e on iar hearing on the Pith of February 1846, eaneuriontlj

ritti an q p ~ e . 1 bruughr by Baideo Si& against the dcarn of the Zillah COWL

in liia suit.

B I B O O GILXliSH U U I T SIXOH

nph) and ai th regard t o the evidenoe m rhst O B B ~ p ~ c r s l l y and

iiat called u p " io argue the cam.

Judgment wee pronounced, as follovra, b~

[118] The Right Han T Peuiiertan 1.eigh.-In this cage their Lordahips do no:

think it necemary to trorble the Counsel for the Respondents. We had erg Ilttle

daubt at $lie terrrins:ian of %he argument for :ha Appellant what judgment ic would

be our dury to rcoommend Her Pejeety to pronounce, but n e were extreniel:

unailling t o intimate ~r.1 opirion npon that sub'aot untii we had en apportuoit?,

by B careful eraminntian of ihe whole proceedings, of escenaining, whether there

" i d ?nfihmg to be found in them which would elther alter or confirm that inr.

pression. $\'e hare had an o p p m u m y of rnaklng that exanination, and the

r e d % of ;hat 1. to I ~ ~ O V B all doubt from OUT minds &e t o the utter absence of 81 y

ground for the present eppeai

V. 3IAHAKAJ.4 XOHESHCR SIBGH [1655] VI XOORE IN0 APP.. iW

Before adverting m tLe cirevmatancee of the owe, either of fact or of h w . which

are ir' controwrsy, it m q be convenient to # m e those as to vhich either there

16 no dirputs, o r an to whioh, in the opinion of ihair Lordshipa. all posaibilmr. of

thrir being aueeeasfullp disputed i s removed by the ev:denee

Iu the month of July, lT i5 , Madlioo Singh aueeeeded to the Zemindary of

Tirhoot He succeeded to the Zemindary on the deaih of his t h r h e r Pratzb

Smgh, nhu had p~eviaualy been in eole poasesaion of it, Madhoo Pingh durir.: the

Ilferime of his brorher being in powsaon of B Peigur.nah called Dhurumpnor, 8%

a Baboo sI1owance, vhich i s & prorision for p&nger eoni, 8 8 an nppanege

of the eatste. Madhoo Sing11 had fire B O U ~ j Kishun Si:@ hir eldest m i , died

a i t h w t iarue in his father's liferime, and a younger 80" called Ramaput Si ign

nae adopted into mother famil7, and oesred. therefore, t o be a e m of Madhoo

Singh. There remained, thereforr. three 11791 sons of Nadhoo Singli. namelr,

Chufur amgl~, hls eldest 8011, H i n t Singh, h i a second 801, and Gobind biugb h i s

thitd e m .

On ine 18th oi June, 1807, Madhoo S.ngh, thinking himself at the point rf

d e d i and being, in tmth, ex2remely 111, abdicated rhe Zeinmdary, and retired to

Benares, or t a the banks of the Gengei, for the purpa~e of dying rhere, and on tha t

day he made a deed, upon which, iii II great measwe. the meim of thia caae turn.

By that deed, after recitiup f l m he "8s unwell and X'RZ r e t m n o from the

narld to die upon the Ganges, ha transferred the 'Ra j , a., he c a l l r f i r . or the

Zernindarr ~n queatian, t o his eldest POL. Cliutur Singh, and b3- fhe same dead he

declared h a t Ire had already given one Peigurnah, Jrdee. t o his neennd @on. IZriit

Singh. iiy way of provision BB B Bsbao, end another Pergunnsh. Burkarpoar

July. 180i, he prerented a ~ m i . l s r petition to :he Collertar. p&ng iha t iii hi-

department thie instrument mighr be carried into effect by ermnng the C $ ~ T R ~ B S m

the n i r n e ~ to which the deed trensferied them. Oc the 12th of A u p t , 1807. aii

order *as made by the Collector aocordiagly. directing those trmsfera to be

entered, snd on the name day the Coliectar tsaued sn ordar to the tenants, ordering

Len. TC pay their renta and assesa-[lBO].manis according to t i le terms of _lim deed:

sird on the 14th of die same month, the Zillah Judge of Tirhost rent s i:mrage

or note to Chutur Eingh, stating that he llad recaved enriimunieation i f t h i s I ~ S I T Y -

ment. a i d that Chutur Singh should be put in posseension, and remain in quip-

possess,oa s.cuording to tlis terms of thilc deed.

K i t h respect, tlwefore, to this instrunent, and 10 the fact of itr having been

made. of ire being considered valid, and carried into e~ecurinn, at lesat adaprcd

bp all the suthorines of the country, there can be no doubt,

But ail tlus takes place daring the t i m e that Madioc Singh vas aline: he con-

tinue- to live till the month of %?ember, l8OT j no doubt IS ever intimeted bj- him.

no s u e p ~ m n suggeated by him of my frsud hniing been practised uipn him. or of

there being any invalidity in this inatrumeut, and upon thlr deed the posersion

~r all roapccte, both r i t h reapcct ta tho Ilaj, I f i t be Raj, and m t h respect to the

Perpnnelis given to thoae ponnger aonr 8 8 Bsboo nllnssiicea, i< taken and con.

firmed aooordirg :o :he terms of the deed.

m ~ r s continued r i l l the rnoiirh of Yay, 1811, aheii Eirur Smgh,

vim v a s ~ t i posieaiion of

Chutur Singh, fnr the purpow of obtainiiig one-third of the Zsmind

VI MOOEE IND. APP., 18% RAROO CUSESH Pmr SINGH

of sga, Gobind Singh would claim his third, or might olaim hie third. of the

Zemindsry.

On tlie 7th of May, 1812, Chvtw Sin& pnt in his mmwer in that mif, sad he

there dirtinetly allepd that the posseasion of rhe Pergunnah held by Kirut Singh

n s s under the ternis of thia deed he deni

~ p o n tPe >weatitwe, and inriared upon

K B ~ in poiseesmn. end oi his ri-iit BI BU

On the 22nd nf June. ISl*? the R Y I

=se dimialed upon this ground; tha:

ahatever, or of what the law might be if no such deed a chat

assented to b,. the sons. &rut Singh had

- 8 8 then in iniaesaior. under the terms of

to t h e deed, slid a s s tound by the whole effem of it.

mar j u d p e n t w m pronounoed on the g h d of June, 1814. Kmut S.ngil

and in the m ~ n t h o i July, 1816, lie abandoned

romise and adjustment, distinetl? recognised tlic

on of thia Zemiudery, of thia Hej, 8 s it i i there

nee. On the 4th of September, 1816, it sppeara

Chutor Singh, ahieh :t was rrid as con-[lSZ]-

eted with the deed of July, 1516. Their Lordships c m find no eunnectmn betwen

m? two deeds: there i z nothing in t le suit which had been instituted by !&rut

ngh. m rhieh the &irn a t i e h Chutur Singh abandoned by the deed of the 4th

Septemher, 1816. is raised or ineisted cpon by htm. It i i e i e ~ c m 1

the e p n i o n of rhair Lordships, e.8 in the slightest degree affectin

cor rhe effect rheterw ii may be of that ebandonmenr of the appeal, thai th.s deed WBS

enaouted hp Chutur Singh. The effect of Chutur Bmgh’s deed R R ~ mmply rhm.

rhst &rut Singh RBS ro be pur in possession of thirtythrse rillapes, a eo,uparatirely

snall quantify of land, which lisd .ben given io him, not by B direer wicrstor of iho

family. bu t by r h Maharanee. the wife of one of thoae former R a p ar at lerrt

a nxmher of the family, Chuiur Singh. ~t seems, had claimed that, not in this suit,

hut had e iamed it, OF e t up wme right to it , &s B pan a i the Zemindary, and.

i the 4th of September, he abendoned it. The clam inrolred in

of :ha 4th of September, 1816, 16 thirty-three vil:ageb, niiereai

d :n $he suit by &rut Singh is anath:rd of fifteen iivndred r d l a p a .

mre of mnnR;tim betwen those two iaarru-

there mere I t would be idle to represent that

deretion for sbandaning the clsim fo the other.

Gobind Birglr had been ill p~ssesrioii

~ s i c n during his minority) of tile Pergunnah

Xinit

1816.

i had been allotted t o t i m , but i n 1816 or 1816 ire came of axe.

e oircumctancca of the cane, if he could distinguiah his C B ~ B from Kirut Sir

t the death of Gobind Singh, ihe present Appeliant was about a year P

Prratimsh applied to his w e .

Iz 1839, Chutur Smgh, who had thus remained d c r q the -hole of his hfo

L'. XAHARAJA irIOAESHLTR SIXOH [ IS j j ] VI MOORE IND APP., 1$4

VI MOORE IPD APP.. 181 BlBOU GUNRSH l>UIT Sl30H

VI XOORE IND. BPP., 18% BhBOO GUNESH DCrT SlSGLI

d. and rliiit which is

7 2

'U. MAHARAJA XOBEBHUR SIS'iH [1855] VI l O O B 8 IND APP, 198

deeo Ie07. theit Lordabipa would be clearly of apnion that he hvid failed

ai+o;ctlw :n the o n ~ e j bu; a3 the property is of very great value, and aa KS have

taken the emmvilist uimsud COUSM of aioppirig t!m Respondent's co;inrei. ir msy be

p ~ o p r i for uri t3 advert to anotlrer

aslonted t a by Cobind Sin& su BQ

$hat drpenda e z m r e l ~ up& rhis. T

Y ~ n u d ~ ai?i.its of 110 doubt: that !le

. "

sliaiiance, but 88 a dietinct and absolute grsrn made t o me upou my investitwe

\\ith the Brshniinical thread: ximilar gran18 on other occ&8ioilb haring been made

bp Msdhoa Smgh iii favour of liia otlkr 8 0 ~ 8 , and I praduco t h x dcod, lnre it is true,

~n the comre of these piuceodiugs, ma:q ?ears after the Contest iisd ariseit--a deed.

the like of nhich it never occurred to K r i t Siiigli to suggest or produce. I: LS in

the first ploce, th . . , 8 ' . . _ I . .

Baboo Gunesh Dutt Singh v. Maharaja Moheshur Si...