MAHBOOB ALAM Vs. KHATIZA KHATOON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS letters patent appeal is directed against the concurrent findings of fact, by reason of which the learned Single Judge dismissed First Appeal No. 138 of 1985(R) filed by the plaintiffs-appellants affirming the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court cased in Title Suit No. 128 of 1982.

(2.) AS the case has a chequered career, some facts are required to be portrayed in details.

(3.) DEFENDANT No. 1, Khatiza Khatoon, filed written statement supporting the case of the plaintiffs but her husband Nazir Alam (defendant No. 2) did not contest the suit even after his knowledge and thus, the suit proceeded ex-parte against him. While supporting the case of the plaintiffs Khatiza Khatoon took the plea that the plaintiffs had no cause of action against her. Giving a complete different genealogical table in her written statement, she asserted that genealogical table given in the plaint was incomplete. According to her, affairs of plaintiff No. 1, Mahboob, was being managed by her husband, Nazir, and taking advantage of Mahboob's minority this Nazir got his name entered in the Pass Book as his father with a bad intention to grab the money of Mahboob. It was Nazir. her husband, with bad intention wanted to purchase the suit house out of the said amount, which was deposited in the name of Mahboob. She admitted the ownership of Mahboob in respect of the suit property. It is her case that being an illiterate lady she could not understand or detect the malicious activity of her husband. She disowned her ownership by asserting that Nazir never invested a single farthing either for acquiring the suit property or in getting the said house vacated from Sugan Chand in the said eviction suit. Without understanding the implication, she executed may documents at the instance of her husband. She was a Pardanashin lady and. as such, she was unaware of any affairs which the plaintiffs could learn on or after 1.12.1982 Thus, according to this defendant, the master mind of the entire collusive and clandestine affairs was her husband Nazir. According to this defendant Ansarul Haque was a bossom friend of Nazir and, as such, Nazir got title suit. 7/74 filed by Ishrat Ara in collusion with each other. This defendant never asserted her right over the suit property. In a nutshell, the stand of defendant Khatiza Khatoon was that she never acquired any right, title or interest in the suit property by virtue of any sale-deed and she supported the case of the plaintiffs.