HAMIDA BANOO Vs. MOHD MUZAFFAR YATOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision motion calls in question the validity of the order, dated: 30th June, 1989, recorded by District Judge, Srinagar. The facts which give rise to the impugned order, need to be set out in brief, so as to appreciate the correctness of the impugned order.

(2.) SUIT for declaration on the basis of right of inheritance and in negation of the compromise decree passed by sub -judge, with the consequential relief for possession on partition was instituted in this court which was subsequently transferred to the District Judge for disposal.

(3.) THE plaintiff claims that she is entitled to 1 kanal and 4 marlas of land out of 12 kanals and one marla comprised in survey No. 874 Khewat No. 64 at village Nagam, Chadoora. The claim is based on the assertion that being the daughter of one Abdul Aziz, the last male holder, she alongwith her brothers and her nephews is entitled to the share on the basis of inheritance, the consent decree dated: 28.9.1972 passed in Civil Suit No. 3 by Sub -Judge (CJM) came to be impeached in the suit as having been obtained collusively. She seeks the declaration that the said compromise decree is ineffective and in -operative as against her rights and interests in the property left by her father. Exclusive possession of the share on partition has been prayed for.