MOHAMMAD YUNIS Vs. MALOOKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-plaintiffs filed a suit for injunction restraining the defendant from alienating trie suit land without their consent who are collaterals of her deceased husband. It was stated that defendant was widow of a collateral of the plaintiffs whose husband died: four years back. Under the agricultural custom, property could not be transferred against the reversionary rights of the collaterals. The defendant transferred a part of the suit property in favour of her daughters and proposed to transfer the remaining also.

(2.) The defendant contested the suit and stated that land was not ancestral nor plaintiffs were collaterals and her daughters had preferential right over the collaterals. It was also stated that ancestral property could also be alienated.

(3.) The trial Court held that the parties were related and husband of the defendant was a collateral of the plaintiffs. It was held that in view of evidence of PW-1 Mohammad Unis and PW-2 Chao Khan, agricultural custom existed in the matter of alienation. It was held that widows interest was only life interest and she could not transfer for property. Reference was made to Riwaj-i-am of Gurgaon District compiled by Wilson to the following effect