FATIMA BIBEE Vs. AHMAD BAKSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit to establish the validity of a hibanama, or deed of gift, said to have been executed by one Dader Baksh and his wife Salimat-unnessa in favour of their son Ahmad Baksh on the 21 May 1897, six days before the death of Dader Baksh.

(2.) Bader Baksh was a Sub-Deputy Collector. He suffered from diabetes for 8 or 9 years, and then albuminuria supervened in 1896. He obtained leave on medical certificate and returned to his home in Cuttack early in May 1897. He was attacked with fever about the 12 May and was treated by 6 Doctor named Keshab Chandra. On the 20 May, Colonel Meadows, the Civil Surgeon, was called in to treat him, and a nurse, Mrs. Anderson, was engaged on that day or the next day. On the 21 May, Dader Baksh and his wife executed a hibanama and it was registered by the Special Sub-Registrar on the 25th. Dader Baksh died on the morning of the 27th. He left six daughters besides his widow and son, the three eldest of whom were married.

(3.) After his death the daughters impugned the hibanama and claimed their legal shares in the property with the aid of Nurul Haq, who wag the eldest daughter's husband, and was appointed guardian of the three minor daughters. But the second daughter, Khatima Bibee, alas Tahera Bibee, subsequently relinquished her claim. The eon has instituted this suit to establish his right under the hibanama; and the dispute relates to the shares which the five dissenting daughters claim. The mother Salimat-un-nessa admits the deed and supports the plaintiffs claim. He says he got possession at once of the whole of the property under the deed; that he is in possession of the share of 51/2 annas which the three youngest daughters claimed but has been dispossessed of the share of 31/2 annas, which the first and third daughters claimed and for which they got their names registered in the collectorate. He asks that he may recover possession of the latter share and that his possession of the former share may be confirmed. The Subordinate Judge decreed the suit, except as regards one item, a house. The five daughters have appealed and the plaintiff has put in cross objections regarding the house.