George Rankin, J.
1.
Rana Sir Shanker Bakhsh Singh
(born in 1840, died in 1897)
Lal Chandra Bhukhan Singh RanaSir Sheoraj Singh
(died on August 7, 1894) (died on, April 14, 1920)
Rana Uma Nath Bakhsh Singh Kunwar Shambhu Nath Bakhsh
(appellant) Singh
2. Rana Sir Shanker Bakhsh Singh was taluqdar of Khajurgaon. In 1890, he had made a will appointing his eldest son Lal Chandra as his
successor, but Lal Chandra having died in 1894 a new disposition was made by Sir Shanker Bakhsh Singh by a codicil dated November 1, 1894.
By this codicil he gave to Sheoraj, his younger son, all his property moveable and im-moveable, including the Khajurgaon estate, but purported to
provide that Sheoraj should not have power to make any son except Uma Nath Singh, his eldest son, the owner and successor to the estate
during his presence"". It is unnecessary to discuss the effect in law of this provision. Sir Shanker Bakhsh Singh having died in 1897 was succeeded
by Sheoraj who became Sir Sheoraj Singh, K.C.LE. On May 9, 1913, two instruments1 were executed. The first was a deed of relinquishment
(dastbardari) to which the parties were Sheoraj, Uma Nath (the defendant-appellant) and Shambhu Nath, his brother. By this deed Sheoraj
relinquished all his rights and property to the defendant-appellant and purported to put him in possession forthwith. The deed provides that the
defendant-appellant should pay the debts of Sheoraj and should be entitled to receive and collect all debts due to him. By its sixth clause it referred
to the contemporaneous instrument-
(6) That I, the declarant No. 2 (Uma Nath), do hereby agree that I shall continue to act according to the conditions laid down in the deed executed
to-day by me in favour of the declarant1 No. 1 (Sheoraj).
3. The second instrument, described as an ikrarnama or agreement, was executed by Uma Nath alone. It recites that Sheoraj, his father, had
appointed him successor and put him in possession ; it provides that a certain village should be set aside for the maintenance of Sheoraj who was
to get in addition a sum of Rs. 7,045 in cash and a further sum after all his debts had been satisfied. Uma Nath by this deed also promised to pay
Rs. 3,000 annually to the wife of Sheoraj and a sum of Rs. 2,000 annually to Musammat Sarwar, a concubine who lived at Khajurgaon and who
had two sons by Sheoraj-viz. the plaintiff Jang Bahadur and Bam Bahadur. Clause (4) of the ikrarnama is as follows:
(4) That I, the executant, shall pay Rs, 50,000, as specified below, in cash, to Jang Bahadur and Bam Bahadur, minor sons of the aforesaid
prostitute, Musammat Sarwar, on their attaining majority provided they remain obedient:- Jang Bahadur Rs. 30,000, Bam Bahadur Rs. 20,000.
After their attaining age of majority, I shall put Jang Bahadur in possession of village Mathiapur, pargana Dalmau and Bam Bahadur in'' possession
of village Udwamao pargana Sareni with the right of inheritance but without the power of making transfer. The aforesaid persons and their heirs
shall continue to pay from the date of their possession, land revenue, cesses and subscriptions of the British Indian Association and Canning
College, along with the additional amount of Rs. 10 per cent., by way of proprietary right, on the land revenue, to me, the executant,, and my heirs.
Except receiving the aforesaid amount in cash and remaining in possession of the villages, mentioned above, the aforesaid persons shall not be
entitled to get any Guzara or allowance from the estate. If for any reason I may not be able to deliver possession of village Mathiapur to Jang
Bahadur then I shall put him in possession of another village, having the same amount of profits and being of the similar quality, according to the
above mentioned condition.
4. These deeds were immediately followed by mutation proceedings whereby the name of Uma Nath was substituted for that of Sheoraj in the
revenue papers. On April 14, 1920, Sheoraj died. At some time-apparently between 1924 and 1927-Musammat Sarwar and her sons left
Khajurgaon and went off to live with her own people in another village. The plaintiff-respondent Jang Bahadur and his young brother Bam Bahadur
were both minors at this time, but Jang Bahadur attained his majority on May 2, 1930.
5. On September 7, 1931, Jang Bahadur brought the suit out of which the present appeal arises against the appellant Uma Nath claiming the sum
of Rs. 30,000 under Clause (4) of the deed of May 9, 1913, and also possession of the village Mathiapur or another village of like value according
to the terms of the deed. A great many issues were framed by the learned Subordinate Judge and discussed at the trial, but in the end the learned
Judge came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not entitled to any decree for possession of the village or for a declaration of any title thereto.
He also found that the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree for Rs. 30,000 claimed because he had not fulfilled the condition of ita''at-that is, the
condition as to obedience mentioned in Clause (4) above recited. On appeal to the Chief Court of Oudh, Nanavutty and Zia-ul-Hasan JJ. allowed
the appeal and gave the plaintiff a decree for possession of the village of Mathiapur and for Rs. 30,000 against the defendant with certain interest,
mesne profits and costs. From this decree the defendant has appealed to His Majesty.
6. Having regard to the fact that the plaintiff Jang Bahadur was not a party to either of the two instruments of May 9, 1913, the first question which
arises is whether or not Clause (4) above recited of the instrument which was executed by the appellant alone amounts to a trust in Jang Bahadur''s
favour so as to entitle him to claim to have the trust performed. It is reasonably plain, as the Courts in India have held, that the two instruments
must be read together, and that the obligations undertaken by the appellant are the terms upon which his father was surrendering to him immediate
possession of all his property. Moreover the provision for Jang Bahadur of a village and of Rs. 30,000 is intended to come out of the property
which was being surrendered. In these circumstances a number of decisions by this Board have made it difficult for learned Counsel for the
appellant to contest the proposition that the instruments created a trust in favour of Jang Bahadur. Nawab Umjad Ally Khan v. Mussumat
Mohumdee Begum (1867) 11 M.I.A. 517, (1892) L.R. 20 I.A. 9 (Privy Council) , (1910) L.R. 37 I.A. 152 (Privy Council) , 23 CWN 549
(Privy Council) , Khajeh Solehman Quadir v. Nawab Sir Salimullah Bahadur, 24 Bom. L.R. 1257 . Their Lordships are in agreement with the
learned Judges of the Chief Court in holding that the effect of Clause (4) above cited was to: create a trust in favour of the plaintiff enforceable at
his instance.
7. This leaves as the only defence remaining to the appellant the condition expressed in the clause by words which, as they appear in the translation
before their Lordships, are, ""provided they remain obedient"". The learned Subordinate Judge was of opinion that the word ""ita''at"" generally implies
submissive obedience, which he explains as ""such solicitous and affectionate attendance and dutifulness, as one would expect from a very near and
dear relation"". The learned Subordinate Judge concluded that the plaintiff must fail as regards the sum of Rs. 30,000 because he had given no
evidence to prove the performance of ita''at, and because he had not cross-examined the defendant whose complaint took the form that the
plaintiff had never offered any nazar at the time of Holi or Dasehra, or other festival, nor visited the defendant even when the defendant was ill. The
learned Judges of the Chief Court read the condition in the clause as meaning that the plaintiff and his brother would be entitled to the money on
condition of their remaining loyal to the defendant and considered that there was nothing to show that the plaintiff had committed any act of
disloyalty. Their Lordships are unable to hold that the complaints made by the defendant of the plaintiff''s conduct: towards him can be regarded as
establishing a breach of the condition ""provided they remain obedient"". The evidence of the plaintiff''s mother and her brother to the effect that
some four or six years after the death of Sheoraj she and her two boys were turned out by the defendant has an important bearing, as the Chief
Court rightly thought, upon this question. It seems reasonably clear that the position of the woman and her sons at Khajurgaon was a very difficult
one and the fact of her being a Mahomedan created further difficulties ; not unnaturally her sons become Muslims.
8. This change of religion would not excuse them from fulfilling the condition as to obedience, but the circumstances taken as a whole throw doubt
upon the reality of the defendant''s complaint. It seems doubtful if the plaintiffs attendance at ceremonies would have been welcomed, and in any
case there is no trace of any request having been made by the defendant to the plaintiff of of any intimation that the defendant desired his company
or his attendance. The mere complaint, therefore, that the plaintiff did not come from the place where his mother was living and pay certain
compliments to the defendant on the occasion of certain Hindu festivals is singularly unimpressive, and whether the word ita''at be translated
obedience"" or ""loyalty"", their Lordships are satisfied that this condition affords no defence to the appellant in this case.
9. Their Lordships are of the opinion that this appeal fails and should be dismissed. They will humbly advise His Majesty accordingly. The
appellant must pay the costs of the respondent.