MAKKAMA KHADIRSAHEB Vs. MASABI ABASALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in this case sued to recover possession of certain property consisting of one survey number and a house. She based her claim upon a Mahrnameh which was passed by defendant No. 1 and his -son in her favour The plaintiff is the daughter-in-law of defendant No. I. And defendant Mo. 2 is the wife of defendant No. 1. The defence of defendant No. 2 way that these two properties were given to her along with the rest of the property by defendant No 1 by way of Mahr in 1908, The Mahrnameh in favour of the plaintiff was made in 1910. Defendant No. 2 claimed these properties an her property and misted the plaintiff's claim. The trial Court was satisfied that Defendant No. 1 had given the plaint property in Main. to defendant No. 2 before it wan given to the plaintiff; but it was of opinion that it way not valid and operative in law. Accordingly the plaintiff claim was decreed against the defendants.

(2.) Defendant No. 2 appealed to the District Court, and the learned Assistant Judge, who heard the appeal, accepted the finding that in 1908 the property in suit was given by way of Mahr to defendant No. 2 by defendant No. 1. But there was 20 writing about it and the laud and the house continued ostensibly in the name of defendant No. 1 and in his possession as before. The Assistant Judge was of opinion that in 1916 this particular property was given by way of Mahr to the plaintiff; and that shortly after defendant No. 1 gave possession of other land to defendant No. 2 in lieu of her dower, The learned Judge was further of opinion that in any case the defendants were estopped from contesting the plaintiff's claim under the Mahrnamch in her favour. Accordingly the appeal was dismissed and the decree of the trial Court was confirmed.

(3.) Defendant No. 2 has now appealed to this Court. It is argued on her behalf that as the property in suit was given to her by way of Mahr in 1908, the title to that property is with her. It is further argued that no document in writing evidencing the giving of the land by way of Mahr is required according to law, and that in 1916 defendant No. 1, who purported to give the property in suit to the plaintiff by way of Mahr, had no title to it. On the other hand it is argued that the Mahr, given to defendant No. 2 in 1908, was really a fictitious Mahr, that what was given to her in 1916 was the real dower, and that defendant No. 2 had no title to this property at the date of the transfer in favour of the plaintiff. Further it is argued that defendant No 1 transferred this property to the plaintiff on the express understanding that the property belonged to him, that it was in his enjoyment, and that lie had every right to give it by way of Mahr to her, and that the defendants are now estopped from contesting the plaintiffs claim, In fact the grounds taken by the lower appellate Court are relied upon by the learned pleader for the respondent in support of the decree.