Judgement Appeal from a decree of the High Court (May 29, 1908) reversing a decree of the District Court of Jaunpur (February 24, 1906). The question decided was as to the construction and effect of a certain petition of compromise set out in their Lordships judgment and dated April 25, 1896. The litigation related to the succession to taluqa Singra Mau, which consists of about eighty-four villages and is situate in the Jaunpur district of the United Provinces. It is an ancient taluqa separately mentioned in the treaties of 1764 and 1775 by which the province of Benares was ceded to the government of the East India Company, and is owned by a clan of Bais Rajputs. The taluqa had been held in former litigation between the members of the family to be impartible and descendible to single members of the family to the exclusion of the others who were entitled to maintenance only. Randhir Singh, in possession of this impartible estate, on December 15, 1894, devised it to Sonao Kunwar, his junior wife, the effect of which was to put an end to impartibility and 8 Law. Rep. 39 Ind. App. 10 ( 1911- 1912) Thakurain Lekhraj Kunwar V. Thakur Harpal Singh 129 to exclude his nephew Sheopal, the husband of the appellant, from the succession. On the death of Randhir Singh, Sheopal sued Sonao Kunwar and her co-widow for a declaration that his will was null and void, and for possession. Sheopal and Sonao Kunwar entered into the said compromise. Sheopal died in 1899, and Sonao in 1904. Thereupon the appellant claimed in the suit in which this appeal arose to establish her title as Sheopals widow. The respondent Harpal Singh, who had obtained mutation of names in his favour and was in possession, defended as the next member of the family who was entitled if the estate continued to be impartible. The question of continued impartibility depended on the construction of the compromise. The respondent Harpal Singh, who had obtained mutation of names in his favour and was in possession, defended as the next member of the family who was entitled if the estate continued to be impartible. The question of continued impartibility depended on the construction of the compromise. Harpal Singh pleaded that the estate of Singra Mau had always been an impartible estate, and according to the custom of primogeniture descended to the eldest son of the eldest branch ; that Randhir Singh became the owner of the estate in accordance with the custom ; that under the will executed by Randhir Singh, his widow Sonao Kunwar acquired merely a life interest; that Sheopal Singh acquired by the deed of compromise no right to the estate except the right to receive an annuity of Rs.12,000 a year as maintenance ; that as he predeceased Sonao Kunwar, his widow acquired no right on the death of Sonao Kunwar; that in no way did the estate become the personal and self-acquired property of Sheopal Singh, nor by the execution of the will and compromise did the nature of the family or of the estate undergo any change; that if Sonao Kunwar, who had only a life interest, made any grant of land to Sheopal Singh by the deed of compromise, the grant was ultra vires and could not prejudice the defendants. The District Court decided (a) that Sonao Kunwar acquired an absolute alienable estate under the will dated December 15, 1894; (b) that the estate devised thereby became the self-acquired property of Sonao Kunwar, that it lost its character as an impartible estate, and that the special custom of descent which governed its devolution till then was no longer applicable to it; (c) that under the compromise of April 25 and the decree of April 27, 1896, based thereon an estate in remainder vested in Sheopal Singh; (d) that the said estate in remainder was his self-acquisition divested of impartibility and special custom of descent; (e) that under the ordinary rules of Hindu law, including in those rules the legal effect of the will, compromise, and decree, the plaintiff was entitled to succeed to the estate against the defendants. The High Court considered that it was upon the true construction of the compromise that the real question in the appeal depended, and they held that upon its true construction it was a recognition by Sonao Kunwar of the impartible nature of the estate and a settlement of that estate upon Sheopal Singh subject to her own life estate therein, Sheopal Singh, on his part, giving up his immediate interest in the estate during the life of Sonao Kunwar on payment to him of an annual sum of Rs.12,000. The High Court concluded its judgment in the following terms— " It appears to us clear upon the true interpretation of the compromise entered into between Sheopal Singh and Sonao Kunwar that Sheopal Singh took an absolute vested estate in the property, the enjoyment of it being postponed during the life of Sonao Kunwar. We also think that upon the language of the compromise it is not possible to hold that the character of the estate as it had been handed down from father to son for generations was changed. As an impartible estate Sheopal Singh Laid claim to it and the compromise provided that as an impartible estate it should devolve upon him. The concession made to Sonao Kunwar by him was that she should enjoy it for her life and sit upon the gaddi as gaddinashin, his occupation of the gaddi being postponed. On the death of Sheopal Singh therefore the estate in our opinion devolved according to the rule of primogeniture governing impartible estates and did not pass to his widow as an estate governed by the ordinary rules of Hindu law." 8 Law. Rep. 39 Ind. App. 10 ( 1911- 1912) Thakurain Lekhraj Kunwar V. Thakur Harpal Singh 130 Sir Erle Richards, K.C, and Dube, for the appellant, contended that the will of Randhir Singh conferred on his widow an absolute estate of inheritance. Its effect was to destroy the character of impartibility which had previously attached to the estate and to render it descendible by the ordinary rules of Hindu law and not by the special custom of primogeniture. They relied upon Surajmoni v. Rabi Nath Ojha (( 1907) L. R. 35 Ind. Ap. 17.); Bhoobunmohini Debya v. Hurrish Chunder Chowdhry (( 1878) L. R. 5 Ind. Ap. 138,); Abdul Wahid Khan v. Nuran Bibi. (( 1885) L. R. 12 Ind. Ap. They relied upon Surajmoni v. Rabi Nath Ojha (( 1907) L. R. 35 Ind. Ap. 17.); Bhoobunmohini Debya v. Hurrish Chunder Chowdhry (( 1878) L. R. 5 Ind. Ap. 138,); Abdul Wahid Khan v. Nuran Bibi. (( 1885) L. R. 12 Ind. Ap. 91.) Then as regards the compromise, so far as that was to be regarded as the root of title it was contended that by its true construction it was not the intention of the parties to estore the character of impartiality which had been put an and to by the will. It was not the intention of that document of April 25, 1896, that the estate should at Sheopal Singhs death evolve by the rule of primogeniture to a single heir. Under the compromise Sheopal took by conveyance from the widow the full estate which she was capable of conveying under the will subject to her life estate and to any reservations in her favour. Sheopals interest was accordingly a self-acquired estate descendible to his heirs by the rules of Mitakshara law and therefore in the first instance to his widow, the appellant. The respondent Harpal Singh could only succeed by the rule of primogeniture, which had long ceased to be applicable to the estate. De Gruyther, K.C., and Ross, for the respondent, were not heard, but referred to Khunni Lal v. Gobind Krishna Narain (( 1911) L. R. 38 Ind. Ap. 87.) as an authority upon the construction of a compromise as to title. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by Sir John Edge. This is an appeal by Thakurain Lekhraj Kunwar (the plaintiff) from the decree of the High Court of Judicature for the North-Western Provinces of India, dated May 29, 1908, which set aside the decree in the plaintiffs favour of the District Judge of Jaunpur, and dismissed the plaintiffs suit and certain objections which had been filed by her. In the suit in which the decree now under appeal was made the plaintiff, who was the widow of Sheopal Singh, claimed proprietary possession of the riasat of Singra Mau in the district of Jaunpur, and mesne profits. In the suit in which the decree now under appeal was made the plaintiff, who was the widow of Sheopal Singh, claimed proprietary possession of the riasat of Singra Mau in the district of Jaunpur, and mesne profits. The defendants to the suit, who are respondents to this appeal, are Thakur Harpal Singh, a distant cousin in the male line of Sheopal Singh, Shamsher Bahadur Singh, a younger brother of the father of Thakur Harpal Singh, Raghuraj Bahadur Singh, and Rampal Singh, minors, sons of Shamsher Bahadur Singh, and Thakurain Janki Kunwar, the widow of Rudarpal Singh, who was a brother of Sheopal Singh, and had died without male issue. The last common ancestor of Sheopal Singh and Thakur Harpal Singh was Dammar Singh. The District Judge of Jaunpur gave the plaintiff Thakurain Lekhraj Kunwar a decree for possession as a Hindu widow, and decreed mesne profits. From that decree the defendants Thakur Harpal Singh and Shamsher Bahadur Singh, on his own behalf and as guardian of his sns Raghuraj Bahadur Singh and Rampal Singh, appealed to the High Court, and in that appeal the plaintiff filed objections to the decree of the District Judge, claiming that she was entitled to a decree for possession of the Singra Mau estate as an absolute owner, and not inanely for the estate of a Hindu widow. The defendant Thakurain Janki Kunwar did not defend the suit; she claimed no interest. The question upon which this appeal depends is a short one. The estate of Singra Mau descended in the male line from Dammar Singh as an impartible estate to one Randhir Singh, who died without issue male in January, 1895. In the family to which Randhir Singh, Sheopal Singh, and Thakur Harpal Singh belonged the rule of primogeniture applied so far as this estate of Singra Mau was concerned. The pedigree of the family will be found in the judgment of the High Court; it is sufficient now to say that 8 Law. Rep. 39 Ind. App. In the family to which Randhir Singh, Sheopal Singh, and Thakur Harpal Singh belonged the rule of primogeniture applied so far as this estate of Singra Mau was concerned. The pedigree of the family will be found in the judgment of the High Court; it is sufficient now to say that 8 Law. Rep. 39 Ind. App. 10 ( 1911- 1912) Thakurain Lekhraj Kunwar V. Thakur Harpal Singh 131 Sheopal Singh, who was the plaintiffs husband, was the son of Jagurnath Singh, a younger brother of Randhir Singh, and that on the death of Sheopal Singh without a son in July, 1899, the defendant Thakur Harpal Singh was, subject to the life interest of Thakurain Sonao Kunwar under a compromise, the next member of the family who was entitled to the possession of Singra Mau, if the estate was then impartible. The question as to whether the estate had ceased to be impartible or had continued to be and was impartible on the death of Sheopal Singh depends upon the construction of an agreement of compromise of April 25, 1896, to which Sheopal Singh and Thakurain Sonao Kunwar, who was the junior widow of Randhir Singh, were the parties. Randhir Singh, who was then seventy-four years of age, and in possession of the impartible estate of Singra Mau, made a will on December 15, 1894, by which he left his entire estate and every kind of movable and immovable property of which he was then in possession to Thakurain Sonao Kunwar, his junior wife. It is admitted that if Randhir Singh was then of testamentary capacity he had power as the owner in possession of the impartible estate of Singra Mau to make that will, and by it to put an end to the impartibility of the estate, and to exclude his nephew Sheopal Singh from the succession, which was the effect of the will as it was executed. After the death of Randhir Singh his widow Thakurain Sonao Kunwar applied for a grant to her of probate of the will. After the death of Randhir Singh his widow Thakurain Sonao Kunwar applied for a grant to her of probate of the will. Sheopal Singh and others filed objections to probate being granted; thereupon in March, 1896, Sheopal Singh brought a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Jaunpur against Thakurain Sonao Kunwar and Thakurain Shankar Kunwar, the senior widow of Randhir Singh, a pro forma defendant, and Babu Soridat, also a pro forma defendant, in which Sheopal Singh alleged that when Randhir Singh was seriously ill and on the point of death, and quite incapable of entering into any contract or of understanding any transaction, the well-wishers of Sonao Kunwar and Shankar Kunwar, having colluded together, caused the will to be executed. Sheopal Singh further alleged in that suit that according to the old custom and nature of the property, and also on the strength of right of survivorship, the right to occupy the gaddi and to enter into possession of the entire estate devolved upon him on the death of Randhir Singh, and he prayed for a declaration that the will of December 15, 1894, was null and void as against him and the estate, and for a decree dispossessing Thakurain Sonao Kunwar and Thakurain Shankar Kunwar, and awarding absolute possession to him, Sheopal Singh, over the entire estate of Singra Mau, together with imlaks, movable and immovable property appertaining to the said estate. On April 25, 1896, Sheopal Singh and Thakurain Sonao Kunwar entered into an agreement of compromise which was executed by them and was in the form of a petition to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Jaunpur in the suit which had been brought by Sheopal Singh against Sonao Kunwar, Shankar Kunwar, and Babu Soridat. That petition was presented to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, and on April 27, 1896, the Subordinate Judge made a decree in the suit in accordance with the petition giving possession of the estate to Sonao Kunwar for her life subject to the terms of the compromise. The petition of compromise was as follows— " 1. That petition was presented to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, and on April 27, 1896, the Subordinate Judge made a decree in the suit in accordance with the petition giving possession of the estate to Sonao Kunwar for her life subject to the terms of the compromise. The petition of compromise was as follows— " 1. The name of Musammat Thakurain Sonao Kunwar will continue to be recorded in the revenue papers in the same way in which it stands recorded, and she will remain in possession during her lifetime of all the movable and immovable properties, of which Rai Randhir Singh was in possession, exercising the powers of gaddinashin (occupation of gaddi) without the power to transfer or change the estate in any way. "2. I, Thakur Sheopal Singh, will take the sum of Rs.12,000 a year at the rate of Rs.1000 per month from Musammat Thakurain Sonao Kunwar for all my expenses, and I, Musammat Thakurain Sonao Kunwar, will pay the same. I, Thakur Sheopal Singh, will not interfere with the estate in any way in the lifetime of Musammat Sonao Kunwar. After the death of Musammat Thakurain Sonao Kunwar, I, Thakur Sheopal Singh, or any representative of mine who may be living at that time, will be the absolute owner of all the movable and immovable properties possessed by Rai Randhir Singh, and will 8 Law. Rep. 39 Ind. App. 10 ( 1911- 1912) Thakurain Lekhraj Kunwar V. Thakur Harpal Singh 132 occupy the gaddi. In case of non-payment of the fixed annual allowance, I, Thakur Sheopal Singh, will have power to recover the same by instituting a suit and attaching the profits and movable property belonging to Thakurain Sonao Kunwar. "3. If I, Thakur Sheopal Singh, have to go to any member of the brotherhood, or any rais on the occasion of any ceremony or otherwise, I will have authority to take as much equipage belonging to the estate as I require, and when I go out for recreations, &c, I will take any conveyance I like for my use. Thakurain Sonao Kunwar will have no power to forbid me. "4. Thakurain Sonao Kunwar will have no power to forbid me. "4. If, on any particular occasion, any indispensable necessity arise in the estate, and it be necessary to take a loan, we, Thakur Sheopal Singh and Musammat Thakurain Sonao Kunwar, will, in concurrence with each other, borrow five or ten thousand rupees, and repay the same gradually from the profits of the estate. " 5. I, Thakurain Sonao Kunwar, also accept all the aforesaid conditions. It is therefore prayed that the case may be struck off as a contested one on the basis of this compromise, and the costs incurred by the parties be charged against themselves. This compromise may be embodied in the decree. Musammat Thakurain Shankar Kunwar and Soridat, pro forma defendants, have been exempted." Sheopal Singh died on July 27, 1899, without issue male, and without having made any disposition by will or otherwise of his interest in the Singra Mau estate. Thakurain Sonao Kunwar, who had been in possession of the estate under the compromise of April 25, 1896, died on June 20, 1904, and thereupon Thaku rain Lekhraj Kunwar and Thakur Harpal Singh respectively claimed possession of the estate. On July 6, 1904, the Collector of Jaunpur ordered mutation of names in favour of Thakur Harpal Singh; from that order Thakurain Lekhraj Kunwar appealed to the Commissioner of Benares, who on September 2, 1904, dismissed the appeal. The District Judge of Jaunpur in his judgment in this suit held that the estate had descended to Thakurain Sonao Kunwar under the will of Randhir Singh by an entirely new title, and had thereby lost its character of impartiality, and was no longer subject to the special custom of descent. The District Judge further held that the estate which Sheopal Singh would have taken had he survived Thakurain Sonao Kunwar would be self-acquired by Sheopal Singh as arising out of the contract of compromise with Thakurain Sonao Kunwar. As the learned judges in the High Court rightly observed, the District Judge went behind the compromise and held that the will was a valid will binding on Sheopal Singh, and determined what in his opinion were the rights of the parties before the compromise, the very thing the avoidance of which led to the compromise. As the learned judges in the High Court rightly observed, the District Judge went behind the compromise and held that the will was a valid will binding on Sheopal Singh, and determined what in his opinion were the rights of the parties before the compromise, the very thing the avoidance of which led to the compromise. The learned judges in the appeal in the High Court held that the rights of the parties to this suit depended upon the construction of the compromise, but not upon the will of Randhir Singh. With that conclusion their Lordships in this appeal agree. They also held that " upon the language of the compromise it is not possible to hold that the character of the estate, as it had been handed down from father to son for generations, was changed. As an impartible estate Sheopal Singh Laid claim to it, and the compromise provided that as an impartible estate it should devolve upon him." And they accordingly dismissed the suit. Their Lordships consider that the High Court put the only possible construction upon the agreement of compromise. Sheopal Singh never admitted the validity of the will as against him, and never admitted that Thakurain Sonao Kunwar had obtained any title under the will. It is obvious from the terms of the compromise that Sheopal Singh consistently maintained that the will was invalid, and consequently that Thakurain Sonao Kunwar had taken no title under it, and that the estate as an impartible estate had vested in him on the death of Randhir Singh. By the compromise Sheopal Singh, reserving to himself 8 Law. Rep. 39 Ind. App. 10 ( 1911- 1912) Thakurain Lekhraj Kunwar V. Thakur Harpal Singh 133 an income of Rs.12,000 a year out of the estate, gave to Thakurain Sonao Kunwar a bare interest for her life in his impartible estate. By the compromise Sheopal Singh, reserving to himself 8 Law. Rep. 39 Ind. App. 10 ( 1911- 1912) Thakurain Lekhraj Kunwar V. Thakur Harpal Singh 133 an income of Rs.12,000 a year out of the estate, gave to Thakurain Sonao Kunwar a bare interest for her life in his impartible estate. Sheopal Singh in the agreement of compromise carefully provided that on the death of Thakurain Sonao Kunwar he or his successor should be the absolute owner of the estate and should occupy the gaddi; that on the occasion of any ceremony, or when he should go out for recreation, he should have the right to take as much equipage and any conveyance belonging to the estate for his use as he should require, and that Thakurain Sonao Kunwar should have no power to forbid him ; and that should it be indispensably necessary to raise any money on the estate by way of loan, he and Thakurain Sonao Kunwar should in concurrence with each other borrow Rs.5000 or Rs.10,000 and repay the same gradually from the profits of the estate. Under the compromise Thakurain Sonao Kunwar had no power to encumber the estate for any purpose, except in conjunction with Sheoraj Singh. The terms to which their Lordships have referred are consistent only with the construction placed upon the compromise by the High Court, and there are no terms in the compromise which suggest any other construction. To these terms Thakurain Sonao Kunwar submitted. It may he mentioned that the Subordinate Judge of Jaunpur, before making his decree of April 27, 1896, took the precaution of ascertaining that Thakurain Sonao Kunwar understood the terms of the compromise. The High Court rightly dismissed the suit of Thakurain Lekhraj Kunwar. The fact that after the compromise the will of Randhir Singh was admitted to probate did not affect the fights of Sheoraj Singh. Their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty that the judgment and decree appealed against should be affirmed and the appeal dismissed with costs.