SYED ASHGAR REZA Vs. SYED MEDHI HOSSEIN KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS suit relates to certain interests in the pergunnah of Surjapore, which appears to be an estate of great value. It was formerly in the sole ownership of a Mahomedan gentleman named Raja Fakruddin. After his death, and after much litigation, it became divided into moieties, one known as Kishengunge and the other as Khagra. These moieties have in their turn been the subject of numerous lawsuits and arrangements, and have been split up into a great variety of interests. The history of the property is very complicated, and it has taken up a great deal of attention in the Courts below, and swells the bulk of the record. But for the present purpose it is not necessary to go further back than the purchase by one Ahmed Reza of the interests now in dispute. They are called the 11 gundahs, and the putni mahal, and each of them is a part of the Kishengunge moiety.

(2.) AHMED Reza had two wives. In the year 1854 he married Afzulunnissa, then a very young girl, though capable of bearing children. She brought him two sons named Hyder and Sufdar, and one daughter, Munni Bibi. All are living, and are Defendants in this suit. In the year 1859 Ahmed married Rowshun Jehan, a lady who was entitled to valuable interests in the Khagra division of pergunnah Surjapore. She brought him four sons, of whom two are dead; the other two are Plaintiffs in the suit, and the eldest, Asghur, is the present Appellant.

(3.) ON the 11th of February, 1851, one Kasim Ali was declared the purchaser of the 11 gundahs at an execution sale. On the 8th of April, 1854, Kasim All effected the registration of an ikrarnama, executed by himself under date of the 21st of August, 1852, in which he declared that the purchase-money was provided by Afzulunnissa, and that she was the real owner of the property. It has been found that the date assigned to the deed is false, and that the true date is that of the registration. This was about the time of Ahmed's marriage with Afzulunnissa-whether before or after is not clearly shown, not does it seem to be important. The statement as to the source of the money is also false. Kasim was the agent of Ahmed, who found the money. Afzulunnissa was very young, "a mere child" the High Court says, and wholly without property. Lutf Ali naturally enough has striven to support the statements of the ikrarnama, but both Courts have found that issue against him. It must be taken that Kasim was benamidar and Ahmed the real owner of the property before the 8th of April, 1854. On that day the formal and ostensible ownership was transferred by Ahmed's orders from Kasim to Afzulunnissa. Whether that transfer merely changed one benamidar for another, or gave a beneficial title to the property, is the first question on this part of the case.