BIBI AJARSAN Vs. GAYASUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, at the instance of defendants 1 to 3, is directed against the judgment of reversal passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Gopalganj, in Title Appeal Nos 3/95, 129/95, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff to the extent that the plaintiff respondent has been declared entitled to 1/3rd share in Schedules 1 and 2 property

(2.) The suit was filed by Raufan, the original plaintiff Her husband Rebeddin was Defendant No 4 and after his death, their son Gayasuddin was finally substituted in her place by transposition as the sole plaintiff The suit was filed for partition claiming 1/3rd share in the property described in Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 of the plaint. The genealogy as given at the foot of the plaint is as under- <IMG>JUDGEMENT_54_CCC2_2003Image1.jpg</IMG>

(3.) According to the case of the plaintiff Sk.Saheb Hussain died leaving behind his widow Most Reshmi who succeeded to the extent of 4 annas share in the property of Saheb Hussain while Sk Gulam Hussain and Sk Mohammad inherited 6 annas each from his property Subsequently, Gulam Hussain died leaving behind Hamidan and Basran and. thus, his widow Hamidan succeeded 2 annas interest and Basiran to the extent of 7 annas interest. The remaining 7 annas went to Sk. Mohammad After the death of Ramidan, Defendant No. 4 Sk. Abeddin succeeded 9 annas interest in the property left by Gulam Hussain Further case of the plaintiff is that Sk Mohammad died leaving behind his widow Baharani, son Jamarati and daughter Bibi Kitaban. Kitaban had one daughter Raufan (original plaintiff) who was married to Sk Rabeddin son of Basiran who was also her cousin The present plaintiff was born out of the wedlock between Raufan and Rabeddin Abeddin, the only son of Sk. Jumarati, predeceased him. Jumarati executed adeed of gift dated 20-1-1987 in favour of Defendants No 1,2 and 3 as, according to the Mohammedan Law, the defendant would have been deprived of the property left behind by him. Likewise. Kitaban also executed a deed of gift of her interest in favour of the original plaintiff Raufan by a registered deed on 13-3-1984 The property was being jointly utilised and enjoyed by both the branches The plaintiff demanded partition which was refused Hence, the suit was filed