RAHIMA BEE Vs. AMATHUL MANNAN BEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit by a Mahomedan woman for a declaration that a sale deed executed by her mother, defendant 1, is void as against the plaintiff and for possession of the properties from the alienees with mesne profits.

(2.) Before going into the merits of the case I am constrained to remark that the way in which the appeal was dealt with in the lower appellate Court leaves something to be desired. The case was heard on 28 September 1929 and judgment was reserved. No judgment was however pronounced for nearly two months. On 25 November 1929 it was posted for being spoken to and after further consideration the judgment was eventually pronounced on 9th December 1929. It is unnecessary to point out that a Judge can have very little recollection of the arguments in an appeal two months after these have been heard and that it is eminently undesirable when judgment has been reserved that there should be such a long delay before the judgment is written.

(3.) The property in this case was purchased by defendant 1 on behalf of her minor daughters under Exs. B and C in 1908. Apparently their property represented the share of the plaintiff and her sister Safra Bi in the assets of their deceased father. Safra Bi was married in 1909 to Ahamed Ali and she died a few days after her marriage. Under the Mahomedan law the heirs to Safra Bi "Would be her husband who would be entitled to three-eighths, her sister, the plaintiff who would be entitled to three-eighths, and her mother, defendant 1, who would get the balance, namely, two-eighths. It would appear that the mother desired to pay off the share of her son-in-law Ahamed Ali. She therefore allowed him to retain jewels, etc., of his wife which were estimated to be worth about Rs. 1,500 and as the total value of Safra Bi's property was about Rs. 8,000 she arranged a sale of certain of the properties acquired under Exs. B and C to defendant 7 for a sum of Rupees 1,500 which money was used to discharge the balance of the claim of Ahamed Ali. It will thus be seen that defendant 1, in order to discharge Ahamed Ali's claim, sold properties in which a half interest was the absolute property of the plaintiff while the other half represented a portion of the estate of Safra Bi in which a three-eighths share belonged to the son-in-law Ahamed Ali, three-eighths to the plaintiff and two-eighths to the vendor, the mother herself.