ants ▁who ▁presented ▁a ▁case ▁were ▁Ran j its in h ji , ▁L akh uba ▁and ▁J ass aj i ' s ▁wid ows . ▁Ran j its in h ji ' s ▁claim ▁once ▁again ▁rest ed ▁on ▁his ▁claim ▁to ▁have ▁been ▁adopted ▁by ▁V ib h aj i ; ▁L akh uba ▁claimed ▁the ▁throne ▁through ▁his ▁position ▁as ▁V ib h aj i ' s ▁grand son , ▁and ▁like ▁Ran j its in h ji , ▁his ▁prior ▁claims ▁had ▁been ▁rejected . ▁J ass aj i ' s ▁wid ows ▁claimed ▁through ▁preced ent ▁that ▁they ▁should ▁choose ▁a ▁successor ▁as ▁J ass aj i ▁had ▁not ▁done ▁so . ▁ ▁T aking ▁advantage ▁of ▁being ▁in ▁India , ▁Ran j its in h ji ▁quickly ▁persu aded ▁Mans ur ▁Kh ach ar ▁to ▁withdraw ▁his ▁court ▁claim ▁in ▁return ▁for ▁pay ing ▁him ▁in ▁full ▁upon ▁his ▁succession . ▁He ▁also ▁secured ▁declarations ▁of ▁direct ▁or ▁partial ▁support ▁from ▁several ▁other ▁states . ▁He ▁also ▁used ▁British ▁newsp apers ▁to ▁further ▁his ▁claim . ▁After ▁exam ining ▁the ▁case , ▁the ▁British ▁found ▁in ▁favour ▁of ▁Ran j its in h ji ▁in ▁December ▁ 1 9 0 6 , ▁although ▁the ▁decision ▁was ▁not ▁made ▁public ▁until ▁the ▁following ▁February . ▁Simon ▁Wil de ▁points ▁out ▁that ▁the ▁decision ▁explicitly ▁contrad icted ▁the ▁evidence ▁provided ▁by ▁the ▁wid ows ▁and ▁seem ingly ▁ignored ▁V ib h aj i ' s ▁abandon ment ▁of ▁Ran