§ 6. Mr. MUNROasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to a money claim made by M. Vencata Row, as sole executor of one Subadra Boyi, against the Government of Mysore; whether a tribunal in Mysore rejected the claim solely on the ground that the will under which Subadra Boyi derived title was not proved because probate had been granted, not on the will itself, but on a copy of it; whether M. Vencata Row, while maintaining that the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in decideing that matter, searched for and obtained the original will referred to, and begged leave to produce it before the tribunal, 983 but that this request was refused; and whether, as the only ground on which an adverse decision was based has now been displaced, he will take steps to reopen the case and secure that a claim which is admittedly well-founded in fact and law shall be admitted?
Mr. BAKERA Regulation of the Mysore Legislature constituted a Special Court in 1896 to try and determine and pass final judgment as to the person or persons, if any, entitled to the moneys in question, and directed the Government of Mysore to carry out the final judgment of the Court. The Court was not satisfied that such a will had ever been executed, or that if executed it had been lost and could not be found, or that a copy of the will produced was a correct copy of the original will. When the document which was alleged to be the original will, but which has never been proved to be such, was found, the Court had already been dissolved, and no power remained to reconstitute it. Such being the case, successive Secretaries of State, after repeated examination of all the circumstances, have considered it impossible to press the Mysore Government to reopen the case, and my Noble Friend regrets that he must adhere to this decision.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTIs the Indian Government of opinion that this man has a really substantial grievance?