Judgement Appeal from a decree of the above Court (March 2, 1900) affirming a decree of the Additional Civil Judge of Lucknow (July 3, 1877), and dismissing the appellants suit. There were three questions dealt with by the Court below, viz. (a) whether the suit was instituted within three years from the appellants majority; (b) whether he was entitled to the taluqdari and jagir estate under clause 4 of s. 22 of the Oudh Estates Act, 1869, as having been treated by his maternal grand- father (the Rajah) in all respects as his own son; and (c) whether he was excluded by custom governing the families of Katyar Thakurs, of which the Rajah was the head, from inheriting the non-taluqdari portion of the estate if it did not follow the devolution of the taluqdari portion. The Additional Civil Judge found (a) and (6) in the negative and (c) in the affirmative. The Court of the Judicial Commissioner differed from him as regards (a), but affirmed his findings as to (b) and (c), and in the result the appellants suit was dismissed by both the Courts in India. In granting leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council, the Court considered that, inasmuch as it had not affirmed the Additional Civil Judge on point (a), its decree could not be said to affirm the decision of Law. Rep. 33 Ind. App. 53 ( 1905- 1906) Kunwar Sanwal Singh V. Rani Satrupa Kunwar 158 the Court below see Rajah Tasadduq Rasul v. Manik Chand (( 1902) L. R 30 Ind. Ap. 35.); but it certified that there were substantial questions of law. De Gruyther, for the appellant, after contending that the suit was barred by limitation, cited Umrao Begam v. Irshad Husain (L. R. 21 Ind. Ap. 163, 166.) as to the concurrent findings of fact. Haldane, K.C., and W. C. Bonnerjee, for the respondent, were not heard. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD MACNAGHTEN. In their Lordships opinion this case is concluded by the concurrent findings of the Additional Civil Judge of Lucknow and the Judicial Commissioners. Both Courts have gone into the case with minute care, and their Lordships consider that the issues of fact have been disposed of in a very satisfactory manner. In their Lordships opinion this case is concluded by the concurrent findings of the Additional Civil Judge of Lucknow and the Judicial Commissioners. Both Courts have gone into the case with minute care, and their Lordships consider that the issues of fact have been disposed of in a very satisfactory manner. Both Courts have found that the appellant, who was the plaintiff in the Court below, was not treated in all respects by Hardeo Bakhsh as his own son, and therefore was not entitled to the statutory right of succession under clause 4 of s. 22 of Act 1 of 1869. It has also been found that, according to the custom of the family, a daughters son does not succeed to the property of his maternal grandfather. Those findings are sufficient to dispose of the appeal; but it may not be out of place to repeat what was laid down in the case of Umrao Begam v. Irshad Husain (L. R. 21 Ind. Ap. 163, 166), to which Mr. De Gruyther has called their Lordships attention. The question, said Lord Hobhouse in delivering the judgment of the Board in that case, " is not only a question of fact, but it is one which embraces a great number of facts whose significance is best. appreciated by those who are most familiar with Indian manners and customs. Their Lordships would be specially unwilling in such a case to depart from the general rule, which forbids a fresh examination of facts for the purpose of disturbing concurrent findings by the lower Courts." Their Lordships will, therefore, humbly advise His Majesty that this appeal should be dismissed. The appellant will pay the costs of the appeal.