MUSST FARID-UN-NISA Vs. MUNSHI MUKHTAR AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-appellant having sued to recover possession of a residence and agricultural land at or near Ahmadpur, the Subordinate Judge of Bara Banki passed a decree in her favour against two of the defendants, who are now respondents to this appeal. In the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh this decree was set aside and the suit was dismissed. The plaintiff had executed a wakfnama, covering the property and appointing the respondents mutawalli of the wakf, and accordingly the claim is in substance to set the deed aside.

(2.) At the time of the execution the plaintiff was a married woman, illiterate, childless and purdanashin. She and her husband, Sheikh Karim-ud-din. were Mohammedans. Most of the property in question had been given to her upon her marriage by her maternal grandfather, but the residence, known as the mahal, and some sir land, both in the village of Ahmedpur, came to her by inheritance. Since her marriage she had lived there continuously, and, although during the earlier part of their married life her husband was generally absent on Government service, he had retired, and for some years had resided entirely at Ahmadpur. He suffered from incurable disease, had become nearly blind, and was otherwise crippled and incapable, but his mind was not in any way affected.

(3.) The defendants, the mutawallis, who were in possession, relied upon the wakfnama as their title. Its gist was to divest the plaintiff of the whole of her property, which became vested in them, but it reserved to her a life stipend of Rs. 34 per mensem, and another of Rs. 33 per mensem to her husband, and also gave her the right to continue to reside in "The Mahal" for life, the mutawallis being bound to keep it in repair, as well as to pay the stipends They were two brothers, sons of a sister of the plaintiff's husband, to whom he was much attached. Their lordships do not think it is sufficiently made out that they or either of them had acted as men of business for the appellant, and they put this point aside, but she was on friendly terms with them. It is said that she was at enmity with her own relations, for reasons that do not appear to reflect on her. At any rate, she virtually lived apart from and saw little of them, nor had she, in fact any support or advice from their side Very shortly after the marriage the management of the property was assumed by the plaintiff's husband, her father, who had previously managed it, being now dead, and he continued to manage it as long as he lived. He employed the necessary karindas and others for the purpose, and directed the disposition of the rents and profits. Over and above hia salary he was himself a man of little or no means, His wife never took part in the management, nor was she shown to have had any business knowledge or experience. From time to time, under the direction of her husband, she executed muktarnamas and other documents for estate purposes but she relied on him entirely as to their necessity and purport. Sums for her personal and household purposes were paid to her with fair regularity, and they seem to have been, though modest, probably sufficient; but she did not direct the whole even of the household expenditure, and her own outlays were on various occasions criticised by her husband and even censured as improvident. There is this to be said for him, that the estate was encumbered and, when he took up the management, much embarrassed, but in time he considerably improved its position. The waknama enumerates sundry charges outstanding upon it, amounting in all to about Rs. 12,800, with an annual interest of Rs. 730, for the service and discharge of which the mutawallis were to provide, and the total value of the property, when settled by the deed, was from Rs. 40,000 to Rs. 50,000, and the income about Rs. 2,500.