ZARINABI Vs. SHAMIM SULTANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by defendant against the concurrent findings. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as plaintiff and defendant.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows. Plaintiff is the daughter of one Mohammad Sabir while the defendant no.1 is mother of the plaintiff and ex-wife of deceased Mohammad Sabir. Deceased Mohd.Sabir was serving as a driver in the State Transport Corporation. He died on 15/12/1985. The plaintiff is the only child born to defendant no.1 from Mohd.Sabir. The plaintiff was married in the year 1984 during the life time of Mohd.Sabir. Mohd.Sabir died on 15/12/1985 and soon thereafter i.e. on 3/9/1986, defendant no.1 entered into a marriage with one Abdul Latif.

(3.) Mohd.Sabir was earning Rs.1000/- per month as a salary on an average. Mohd.Sabir agreed to purchase a plot from one Abdul Rahim s/o Sk.Ibrahim. There was an agreement of sale on 30/12/1977. Mohd.Sabir had paid entire consideration to Abdul Rahim on 30/12/1977 only. The sale deed could not be executed in favour of Mohd.Sabilr due to the Urban Land Ceiling Law. It was agreed that the sale-deed would be executed in favour of Mohd.Sabir on 28/1/1978, however, it came to be executed on 17/10/1979. It is the contention of the plaintiff that entire consideration for the purchase of the said house was paid by Mohd.Sabir. Although agreement of sale was in the name of Mohd.Sabir, the sale-deed came to be executed in the name of defendant no.1. The plaintiff submits that defendant no.1 had no source of income whatsoever and she did not contribute even a single pie towards consideration. It is contended that since Mohd.Sabir's relations with his brothers were not cordial, he had apprehension that his brothers may lay claim on the property and therefore, he ostensibly purchased the same in the name of defendant no.1. Further, it is contended that the plaintiff being daughter was entitled to succeed to the amount which was lying with the State Transport Corporation in respect of Government Provident Fund (GPF) and Gratuity of deceased Mohd.Sabir. It is contended that the defendant has collected sum of Rs.16,780/- on account of provident fund and Rs.21,746/- on account of gratuity. The plaintiff claims partition and separate possession of the house to the extent of 7/8th share in respect of the entire property.