KHATOONI Vs. LASSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal against the judgment of the Addl. District Judge Srinagar who confirmed the judgment of the First Addl. Munsiff at Srinagar. It is not necessary to state the facts of the case at any great length, because they are fully set out in the judgment of the lower appellate court.

(2.) THE plaintiff instituted a suit in the First Addl. Munsiffs Court at Srinagar for a declaration that she is the Dukhtar Khana Nashin of her deceased father, Qadir Bhat and is as such entitled in the property left by the deceased. The plaint proceeds on the basis that under the Customary law governing the parties, a Dukhtar Khana Nashin entitled to be treated as a son for purposes of heritance, and that as the plaintiffs father died without any male issue surviving him, the plaintiff Dukhtar Khana Nashin is entitled to inherit the entire property left by the deceased. The defendants who are the agnates of the plaintiffs deceased father threatened to take possession of the property left by her deceased father, and therefore the plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration. The defendants contended that the plaintiff was not a Dukhtar Khana Nashin, that she was not in possession of the property in suit, that she was not entitled to the declaration prayed for and that her suit was not maintainable under S. 42 of the Specific Relief Act. The trial court found against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. On appeal, the District Court confirmed the findings of the trial court. The plaintiff has, therefore, come up to this court in second appeal.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the plaintiff strenuously argued that the finding of the first appellate court as well as of the trial court that the plaintiff is not Dukhtar Khana Nashin is erroneous. But this is purely a finding of fact. It is not open to the plaintiff -appellant to canvass such a concurrent finding of fact in second appeal. It follows that the concurrent finding of fact must stand.