Judgement Appeal from a decree of the High Court (Aug. 4, 1899) reversing a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Gya (Sept. 24, 1897). The suit was brought by the respondent to recover property which the appellant was holding under a judgment of the Privy Council passed in June, 1873. The plaintiff claimed under a deed of transfer by two persons, who asserted that they were the next heirs of one Sheo Churn, and as such entitled to succeed to certain property held by his mother Mahan Soonder as his heir until her death. The issues raised substantially the following questions first, whether Mahan Soonder held as heir of Sheo Churn or by an independent title ; secondly, whether the transferors were heirs of Sheo Churn, and made a valid transfer of their rights to the property to the plaintiff; thirdly, whether the litigation terminated by the Privy Council decree had any bearing upon the present claim. There was a plea of limitation, which was disposed of by both Courts finding that Mahan had no independent title. Both Courts found that Sheo Churn Lai took a vested interest under the oral will of his grandfather Ram Dyal Singh; that defendants story of the oral gift to the daughter Mahan Soonder Koer was not true; and that the respondents vendors were the nearest collateral heirs of Sheo Churn Lai. They differed, however, in this—that the first Court held that the respondents transfer deed was invalid and not enforceable, while the High Court held it to be valid. 28 Law. Rep. 30 Ind. App. 41 ( 1902- 1903) Ram Anugra Narain Singh V. C howdhry Hanuman Sahai 129 Haldane, K.C., and Mayne, for the appellant, contended that the evidence shewed that Sheo Churns claim was merely as daughters son to Ram Dyal, and as he predeceased Ram Dyals widow his title never accrued. Even if the alleged will is upheld the same result follows, for the intention of the testator clearly was that the gift to Sheo Churn was contingent on his surviving the widow, and as he did not do so it failed of effect. From the death of the widow Mahan Soonder asserted an absolute title to her share, and, consequently, her possession was adverse to every one who claimed title under Sheo Churn see Lachhan Kunwar v. Anant Singh (( 1894) L. R. 22 Ind. From the death of the widow Mahan Soonder asserted an absolute title to her share, and, consequently, her possession was adverse to every one who claimed title under Sheo Churn see Lachhan Kunwar v. Anant Singh (( 1894) L. R. 22 Ind. Ap.25); Mahabir Pershad v. Adhikari Koer (( 1896) Ind. L. R. 23 Calc. 942, 946, 948, 949.); Ramanugra Narain v. Mahasandur Kunwar. (( 1873) 12 Beng. L. R. P. C. 433.) Sir W. Rattigan, K.C., and C. W. Arathoon, for the respondent, were not heard. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by SIR JOHN BONSER. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Calcutta, which reversed a decree of the Second Subordinate Judge of Gya. The plaintiff (the present respondent) sued to recover certain villages which were in the possession of the defendant (the present appellant). He claimed under a conveyance made in his favour by the heirs of one Sheo Churn, who was entitled (as he alleged) to the property under the will of one Ram Dyal, subject to the life interest of Ram Dyals widow Birj Koer. The principal questions argued before their Lordships and the Courts below were (1.) whether Sheo Churn was entitled to the property as alleged by the plaintiff, and (2.) whether the plaintiffs vendors were Sheo Churns heirs. As regards the first question, both Courts found that Ram Dyal did make on his deathbed an oral disposition of this property, under which his grandson Sheo Churn, then an infant of tender years, took a vested estate subject to the life interest of Birj Koer. It was urged by the appellants counsel that the evidence was insufficient to establish such a gift, and they insisted on the improbability of the testator passing over his own daughter in favour of her infant son, and contended that, even if the testator intended to benefit Sheo Churn, the gift was contingent on his surviving the tenant for life, which he did not do ; but their Lordships are of opinion that the finding of the Lower Courts is fully justified by the evidence, and ought to be affirmed. On the second question, both Courts agreed in finding that the plaintiffs vendors were proved to be the heirs of Sheo Churn; and, according to the well-known rule of this Board, such a finding will not be disturbed unless it can be shewn to be clearly erroneous. The appellants counsel, however, con tended that this finding was not within the rule, because the Courts were not quite agreed on the grounds of their decision— the Subordinate Judge relying on the oral testimony, whilst the High Court based its finding on the documentary evidence. But the rule is none the loss applicable because the Courts may not have taken precisely the same view of the weight to be attached to each particular item of evidence. A further point, which does not appear to have been expressly raised in the Courts below, was pressed on their Lordships. It was contended that Mahan Soonder Koer, Sheo Churns mother, under whom the defendant claims, and who entered into possession of the property upon her sons death and enjoyed it until her own death, which happened shortly before the institution of this suit, acquired an absolute title by adverse possession against the heirs of Sheo Churn. Their Lordships are of opinion 28 Law. Rep. 30 Ind. App. 41 ( 1902- 1903) Ram Anugra Narain Singh V. C howdhry Hanuman Sahai 130 that the possession of Mahan Soonder Koer must be referred to her title as heiress of her son, in which capacity she would take a life interest, and that no case of adverse possession has been established. For these reasons their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal ought to be dismissed. The appellant will pay the respondents costs.