(1.) The plaintiff instituted this suit in the Chief Court of Oudh for a declaration that he was the adopted son Mahabir Baksh Singh and that the deed of gift executed by the first defendant, who is the widow of Mahabir's elder brother, Mahesh Baksh Singh, in favour of the second defendant was not binding beyond her own life-time. As the valuationn of the suit proved to be under five lakhs of rupees it was insufficient to give the Oudh Chief Court original juristiction, and the plaint was amended by claiming reliefs as to other properties as well, but these claims are none the subject of this appeal as they failed before Pullan J., the trial Judge, and were given up at the hearing of the appeal inn the Chief Court. Pullan J. gave the plaintiff a declaration as to the adoption, and otherwise dismissed the suit. The Chief Court modified this decree by giving the plaintiff a declaration as to the deed of gift as well. From this decree the defendants have preferred the present appeal.
(2.) The following pedigree will help to show how the suit arose :-
(3.) Hardat Singh, the Rajah of Bondi, having taken an active part in the Mutiny, his estates, which had been confiscated under Lord Canning's Proclamation, were not restored to him, but were granted to the Maharajah of Kapurthala in consideration of his services, subject to the payment of a maintenance allowance of Rs 250 a month to Hardat Singh's sons, Mahesh Bakhsh Singh and Mahabir Bakhsh Singh.