SRIMATI AMINA KHATUN Vs. GIRISH CHANDRA ROY CHOWDHRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff sues for possession of a miras tenure, and for a declaration that a mooktearnama and a kabala of Magh 1269, set up by defendant, were so set up falsely and collusively. Plaintiff's allegations are that she never executed such a conveyance or the power of attorney set up by defendant as her acts and deeds; that the whole was a deceitful arrangement by defendant No. 1, Kedar Meah, who prevailed on one Sheikh Haradhan, father of defendants Nos. 4, 5 and 6, and a servant of plaintiff, to get the above deeds executed; that the mooktearnama was in the name of Mooktarooddin, defendant No. 2, but was false; that the deed of sale which purported to make Abdul Hamid, defendant No. 3, the vendee was not executed by plaintiff; that plaintiff sold one-half and leased one-half to Wise, who sued for possession under section 15, Act XIV of 1859, bat abandoned the purchase; and that special appellant, defendant No. 8, Girish Chandra, purchased from defendant Abdul Hamid, and plaintiff was dispossessed. The answer of defendants substantially was that the power of attorney and conveyance were true; that legal possession passed under them; that as plaintiff admitted she had sold half to Wise and farmed half before the suit under Act XIV of 1859, and that plaintiff never showed how she was revested with her proprietary right, she could not sue.

(2.) The first Court gave plaintiff a decree considering on the evidence that the plaintiff's allegations were proved. The lower appellate Court affirmed the decision of the first Court.

(3.) Some of the grounds of special appeal recorded in the petition, are as follows: