KHATJI Vs. AB RAZAK SUFI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MST . Khitji filed a suit in the court of the Munsiff Duru for a declaration that Abdul Razak Sufi was not the adopted son (Pisar Par - warda of Qadir Yatu, and for a permanent injunction restraining the said Abdul Razak Sufi from interfering with the possession of the suit properties of the plaintiff. The learned Munsiff decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Abdul Razak Sufi preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Munsiff and the District Judge Anantnag reversed the judgment and decree of the learned Munsiff and allowed the appeal. Mst. Khatji has now preferred this second appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge Anantnag.

(2.) MST . Khatji (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) claimed in the suit that she was the daughter of Qadir Yatu and that the said Qadir Yatu had performed her marriage with Samad Sufi, the second defendant in the suit and that after the marriage both she and her husband were living in the house of Qadir Yatu and that the latter had made a declaration to the effect that she was his Khana Nashin daughter. It was also stated that Qadir had two other daughters, Fatima and Rahmati, and that after their marriage they were living with their respective husbands and that they were not declared by Qadir Yatu as his Khana Nishin daughters. She therefore claimed by virtue of her being the only Khana Nashin daughter of Qadir Yatu. She was entitled under the custom governing the parties to inherit all the properties left by Qadir Yatu on his death. It was denied that Abdul Razak Sufi the first defendant had been adopted by Qadir Yatu as his Pisa Parwarda. The first defendant was, however, putting forward a false claim to a half share in the suit properties on the basis that he was the Pisar Parwarda of Qadir Yatu. The first defendants it was alleged, had contrived to get false entries made in the revenue records to the effect that he was the Pisar Parwarda of Qadir Yatu and on the strength of those entries in the revenue records he was trying to interfere with the possession of the suit properties by the plaintiff.

(3.) THE second defendant is the plaintiffs husband. He and defendants 3,4 and 5 Mst. Fata, Mst. Rahmati and the husband of Mst. Fata, namely, Ahsan Bhat, did not contest the suit and in the written statements filed by them supported the plaintiffs case. The suit was however resisted by the first defendant. He denied that the plaintiff was the Khana Nashin daughter of Qadir Yatu. On the other hand it was claimed that the first defendant had been adopted by Qadir Yatu and his Pisar Parwarda and that as such he was the sole heir to all the properties left by Qadir Yatu to the exclusion of the plaintiff and the other daughters of Qadir, defendants 3 and 4, who had been married outside and were living with their respective husbands, and that as such neither the plaintiff nor defendants 3 and 4 were entitled to any share in the said properties.