Shah, J. - (1.) By our judgment dated April 19, 1968, we passed the following order in this appeal: "It will be declared that the deed of trust executed by Raja Bishwanath on August 29, 1932, did not operate to settle any property being part of the taluqdari estate and governed by the Oudh Estates Act 1 of 1869, for the purposes specified therein." The Senior Raj Kumar applied for review of judgment on the ground that the deed of trust dated August 20, 1932, settled properties as non-taluqdari as well as taluqdari and the Court at the earlier hearing did not make any order as to the devolution of the non-taluqdari property. Apparently at the earlier hearing no argument on the matter now sought to be raised was advanced, though the hearing lasted for several days. We have, however, granted review of judgment and heard the parties on the question whether a different rule of devolution prevails in respect of properties which are non-taluqdari.
(2.) We have held that on the death of Raja Surpal Singh the taluqdari estate of Tiloi vested in Rani Jagannath Kaur, and she continued to hold the property as life owner under Section 22 (7) of the Oudh Estates Act, even after she adopted Raja Biswanath Singh on February 21, 1901, and so long as she was alive Raja Bishwanath Singh had no interest in the estate which he could settle or convey. The deed of settlement was executed by Raja Biswanath Singh during the life-time of Rani Jagannath Kaur and did not operate to convey the taluqdari estate. Counsel for the Senior Raj Kumar contends that even if Raja Bishwanath had no interest in the taluqdari estate, under the ordinary Hindu Law, on adoption the non-taluqdari property left by Raja Surpal Singh vested in Raja Bishwanath Singh and he was competent under the deed of the manner directed by that deed. Counsel says that the devolution of non-taluqdari property is governed by the rules of Hindu Law, and that on adoption of a son by Rani Jagannath Kuar her interest in the property was divested and the adopted son became the owner of the property.
(3.) Counsel for the Junior Raj Kumar resists this claim. Section 8 of the Oudh Estates Act 1 of 1969 provides for the preparation of lists of taluqdars and grantees, and the second list prepared under that section is a list of taluqdars whose estates, according to the custom of the family on and before the 13th day of February 1856, ordinary devolved upon a single heir. The taluqdari estate of Tiloi was entered in the second list. By Section 10 of the Act is provided: "No persons shall be considered taluqdars or grantees within the meaning of the Act, other than the persons named in such original or supplementary lists as aforesaid. The Courts shall take judicial notice of the said lists and shall regard them as conclusive evidence that the persons named therein are such taluqdars or grantees." Section 22 of the Act prescribes a special mode of succession to intestate taluqdars and grantees. By Clause (6) of Sec. 22 in default of any brother, or a male lineal descendant, the estate devolves upon the widow of the deceased taluqdar or grantee heir or legatee, for her life-time only, and by Clause (7) on the death of the widow, the estate devolves upon such son as the widow shall, with the consent in writing of her deceased husband, have adopted, and his male lineal descendants. The Tiloi Estate which was a taluqdari estate therefore, devolved upon Rani Jagannath Kuar and she held that estate during her life-time. The rule of Hindu law that on the adoption of a son by a widow to her deceased husband, the estate vests in the adopted son, is by the express provisions of Clauses (6) and (7) of Section 22 of the Oudh Estates Act inapplicable to taluqdari estates. That was so held in our earlier judgment dated April 19, 1968, and on that account the claim of the Senior Raj Kumar to take the taluqdari estate under the deed of settlement was negatived.;