MT ANWARI JAN Vs. BALDUA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiff who brought a suit for partition of 7/24 of a certain house. The plaintiff based her title on the fact that she had purchased 7/24 of the house on 20 July 1923, from one Mt. Sharbati. It appears that one Mendua was the owner of a certain house who died leaving a widow Mt. Kaunsila alias Rahiman, a son Baldua and a daughter Mt. Sharbati. The plaintiff alleged that Mendua at the time of his death was a Mahomedan, and as such his daughter Mt. Sharbati inherited seven out of 24 sihams and as the plaintiff has got a sale deed from Mt. Sharbati she is entitled to have the house partitioned. The defence was that Mendua at the time of his death was a Hindu and after his death the house devolved solely on Baldua and the plaintiff was not entitled to obtain a partition on the basis of her sale deed. The defendants to the suit were Baldua and Mt. Kaunsila alias Rahiman.

(2.) It is therefore clear that the sole question for the determination of the Courts is as to whether Mendua was a Hindu or a Mahomedan at the time of his death. Parties tendered oral and documentary evidence, the latter consisting of certain copies of entries in the Municipal Birth and Death Registers. The trial Court was of the opinion that the oral evidence produced on behalf of the plaintiff was satisfactory, that the oral evidence produced on behalf of the defendant was not reliable and that the entries in the Municipal Birth and Death Registers were not sufficient to prove that Mendua was a Hindu at the time of his death. That Court was therefore of the opinion that Mendua was a Mahomedan at the time of his death and therefore Mt. Sharbati was entitled to 7 out of the 24 sihams of the house and the plaintiff as transferee from Mt. Sharbati was entitled to obtain partition.

(3.) The lower appellate Court, while reviewing the plaintiff's oral evidence, came to the conclusion that it was not satisfactory. It then went on to say that the defendant examined himself, Ghasi Ram, Raghubar, Dwarka, Dilawar and Shiam Sundar and the evidence of all these witnesses, taken with certain exhibits which were extracts from the Birth and Death Registers of the Municipal Board, was much more satisfactory. It therefore came to the conclusion that Mendua was a Hindu at the time of his death and therefore Baldua alone inherited the house and Mt. Sharbati, was not entitled to transfer any share in the house to the plaintiff. It therefore dismissed the plaintiff's suit.