SYED AFZALUR RAHMAN Vs. SYED NAZIRUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by defendant No. 1 against a decree declaring that the plaintiff has an 8 anna share, in the Tapowan Jagir, that he has a like share in fields S. Nos. 26, 27 and 33 situate at Tapowan, that he is entitled to accounts from defendant No. 1 of the income of the Jagir village and the three fields for the years 1944 -45, 1945 -46, and 1946 -47 and that he is entitled to partition and separate possession of his share in those fields.

(2.) THE plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are brothers, defendants Nos. 3 and 4 are their sisters, and defendant No. 2 was their mother who died during the pendency of the appeal. It is common ground that the inam of the village Tapowan was granted to Ainuddin (junior) who was related to the parties to the suit as shown in the following genealogical tree: Ainuddin (Senior) Syed Raza Asadulla Mohd. Hamza Anso Miyan Faizulla Ainuddin (Junior) daughters Mumtaz Begum Asadulla Syed Ahmadulla = Putli Begum (deft. 2) Syed Afzalur Syed Naziruddin Sultani Nurani (deft. 1) (plff.) Begum Begum (deft. No. 3) (deft. 4) In the Inam certificate granted to Ainuddin (Junior) it was stated in column 20: To be continued rent free in perpetuity to claimant and his share -holders. It is common ground that the co -sharers in existence at the time of the grantof the certificate were Faizulla and Anso Miyan. Eventually, the latter's branch came to be excluded as, apparently, Anso Miya left only his daughter's descendants. The plaintiff, his brother and his sisters are the descendants of Faizulla. After the death of Ainuddin (Junior) his daughter Mumtaz Begum succeeded to the Inam, but after her death it went to Asadulla, the brother of the plaintiff's father, and after his death without an heir, it went to the plaintiff's father, and after his death, according to the plaintiff, it went to him and defendant No. 1. It is not disputed that under the Inam certificate read with the Inam Rules a daughter does not become a fresh stock of descent for the purpose of the devolution of an Inam. The plaintiff and defendant No. 1 go further and say that daughters do not take any interest in the Inam property.

(3.) DEFENDANT No. 1 denied the plaintiff's claim in toto and pleaded alternatively that even if the plaintiff had any right with respect to the Inam village, he was not entitled to any defined share therein much less to a share to the extent of eight annas. He also disputed the plaintiff's right to ask for accounts as also for the partition of the three fields. Defendant No. 2 admitted the plaintiff's right but contended that she was entitled to -/2/4 share only and that this share should be allotted to her. The defendants Nos. 3 and 4 admitted that the plaintiff was a lineal descendant of the last 'jagirdar' and as such was a sharer in the village. According to them, however, the shares of the parties to the suit were as follows: Plaintiff .. .. 7/24th Defendant 1 .. .. 7/24th Defendant 2 .. .. 7/48th Defendant 3 .. .. 7/48fth Defendant 4 .. .. 7/48th