MOHD YAMIN Vs. MULLA ABDUL SATTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that has been raised in this revision is whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the court fee payable by the plaintiffs-revisionists shall be in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 (vi-A) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, on one-fourth of the value of the share of the plaintiffs and on the full value of the share of the plaintiffs.

(2.) The plaintiffs-revisionists filed Suit No. 104 of 1997, alleging that the common ancestor of the plaintiffs and the defendants was one Nanhe who had two sons Abdul Ghani and Abdul Kareem. The plaintiffs are heirs of the daughter of Abdul Ghanl whereas defendants are descendants of Abdul Kareem. Abdul Ghani had no male descendant and on his death, he was survived by his widow and daughter. On the death of widow of Abdul Ghani, his daughter inherited the share of Abdul Ghani and on her death, her heirs and legal representatives, viz. the present plaintiffs succeeded to the share of Abdul Ghani in the suit property. The defendants are grandchildren of the other co-sharer Abdul Kareem. The plaintiffs claim that they had one half share in the suit property being co-owners of the same. The plaintiffs, in the month of April. 1997, asked the defendants to partition the suit property but they refused to partition the same and thereafter the plaintiffs made enquiries from the Municipal Board. Tanda and got extracts from the Assessment Register for the year 1939-40 and 1966-67. On perusal of the same, they learnt that Abdul Gafoor one of the defendants manipulated the entries in the Municipal records and got entries in their names instead of getting entries recorded in the joint names of the plaintiffs' mother and the defendants. The defendants are intending to dispose of the suit property. On these allegations, a suit was filed for the relief with regard to the partition of the suit property after declaring one-half share of the plaintiffs and for delivery of actual possession of the portion of the suit property after its partition and for restraining the defendants from transferring the suit property. They also prayed for a decree of pendente-lite and future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 400 per month.

(3.) Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 8 contested the suit alleging that house No. 1339 was self-acquired property of Abdul Kareem which he had purchased from Mohd. Ibrahlm vide registered sale deed dated 26.5.1955. It was further stated that the house had fallen down being a dilapidated one and there was a family settlement between the three sons of Abdu) Kareem. Abdul Jabbar, since dead and Abdul Sattar, defendant No. 1, had surrendered their interest in the said house through a deed dated 10th April. 1966, for a sum of Rs. 99. It was further pleaded that towards east of house No. 1339, there existed house No. 1313. As regards other properties, i.e.. house Nos. 1333, 1334, and Chak No. 1343, it was pleaded that originally the said properties belonged to Nanhe father of Abdul Ghani and Abdul Kareem of whom the plaintiffs and defendants respectively are descendants. It was admitted that both the sons had half share each in the property of Nanhe. On the death of Abdul Ghani, his widow and daughter had 5/16 share only and the nephews of Abdul Ghani had 3/16 share in the property. Abdul Kareem had one half share in the suit property. There was a family settlement in respect of the three houses between the heirs and legal representatives of Abdul Ghani and Abdul Kareem. The plaintiffs maternal grandmother and their mother had surrendered their interest in the above three houses in favour of Abdul Jabbar and Abdul Sattar sons of Abdul Kareem on a consideration of Rs. 700 and had executed a document dated 10th April. 1956, and the said family settlement was acted upon. Under the said agreement Abdul Sattar had become sole owner of House Nos. 1333 and 1334, and on his death his heirs succeeded to the said property. In respect of House No. 1343, also there was a settlement between the co-sharers. This house was allotted to the share of Abdul Jabbar and defendant Nos. 2 and 3, and a document of settlement was executed on 10th April. 1966. The maternal grand-mother and mother of the plaintiffs had surrendered their rights in the said house for a consideration of Rs. 300. Thus, the plaintiffs now have no share or title in the suit property nor they are in possession of the same.