MAHADEO LAL JWALA PRASAD Vs. MTBIBI MANIRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in this litigation is the wife of Munshi Jamaluddin, formerly a prosperous merchant of Daltonganj, whose prosperity has declined during the last nine or ten years. In 1927 a firm of Daltonganj obtained judgment against him in a suit for money, in execution of which certain houses were attached. Jamaluddin's wife, Bibi Maniran, preferred a claim to these houses under Order 21, Rule 58, on the strength of a baimokasa deed executed on 9 March 1926, by which. Jamaluddin had conveyed to her property to the value of Rs. 10,000, including these houses, in satisfaction of a dower debt.

(2.) The Munsif in whose Court the execution was proceeding rejected the claim of Bibi Maniran, finding that her dower had been fixed at a very much lower sum than that which she alleged, and that the transfer was a colourable transaction made only for the benefit of the judgment-debtor. Bibi Maniran thereupon instituted this suit praying for a declaration that the two houses were her property and that they were not liable to attachment and sale in execution of a decree against her husband. She alleged that her dower had been fixed at forty thousand rupees and five ashrafis, payable on demand, and that the conveyance of the houses had been made in good faith m part satisfaction of that debt, of which she had remitted balance.

(3.) The suit was contested by the firm who had attempted to execute the decree, who denied that the dower had been fixed at anything like forty thousand rupees, and alleged that the baimokasa deed had been executed merely in order to place the property beyond the reach of creditors; that the transaction was merely colourable, and that possession had not passed to Bibi Maniran. The learned Subordinate Judge found that the dower had been fixed as claimed by the plaintiff; that the baimokasa deed had been executed in good faith in satisfaction of her claim and that title and possession had actually passed to Bibi Maniran. He, therefore, decreed the suit. The decree-holder-defendants appeal from that decision.