HUSSAIN BEE Vs. SAKEENA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Petition to revise the order of the 1st Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court Hyderabad dated 28-2-1964 made in I. A. No. 339/63 in. O. P.198/62. O. P. 198/62 was filed by the respondents 1, 3 to 5 herein for issuing a succession certificate in their favour in respect of certain policy amount realisable by them as wife and children of the deceased Shahabuddin, the policy holder. In the said petition the petitioner herein filed application under order 1 rule 10 C P. C. for being impleaded as parties on the ground that petitioner No. 1 herein viz, Hussain Bi was the wife of the deceased Shahabuddin and the other petitioners were sons and daughters of the said deceased and as such were entitled to a part of the policy amount. This was resisted by the other side. Thereupon, the lower Court instead of summarily disposing of the petition, allowed the parties to adduce evidence both oral and documentary to sub-stantiate their respective contentions and ultimately by an elaborate order held that the petition filed by the petitioners herein for being impleaded as a party, was not maintainable and in that view dismissed the petition. It is against this order that the revision petition has been filed.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petititioner Srimati Faizunnisan contends that the finding of the lower court is unsustainaable inasmuch as it has not correctly appreciated the Muslim Law in regard to the proof of marriage-etc. It is urged by her that there is overwhelming evidence to substantiate the factum of marriage of Hussain Bi with the deceased Shahabuddin, both oral and documentary and the lower Court was not justified in rejecting it on an erroneous interpretation of Muslim Law.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand urged that the finding of the lower Court, right or wrong, is not revisable at this stage because no question of jurisdiction is involved. He, however, conceded that the lower court should not have gone elaborately into the question of marriage of the Petitioner No. 1 with the deceased, in a proceeding of this nature and if in its view the petition was not maintainable should have rejected the petition and directed the Petitioner No. 1 to establish her case by a proper suit. I think that course would have been appropriate and more according to law. In Mt. Charojo v. Dina Nath1 it has been held that: