LAWS(PVC)-1946-9-28

S K SAHUL HAMID Vs. SMSULTHAN

Decided On September 20, 1946
S K SAHUL HAMID Appellant
V/S
SMSULTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by defendants 4 and 6 against a preliminary decree for partition made in favour of the first respondent by the Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly. The plaintiff and defendants 1 to 13 are Mahcmedans and alleged to be co-sharers. The other defendants are alienees from some of the defendants of portions of the properties in suit. The plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to 19/240 share in the properties set out in the schedules to the plaint.

(2.) Though there was some contest in the trial Court, there was no dispute before us about the relationship between the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 13. One Pakkiri Taragan had four sons, Alliyar, Sheik Uduman, Syed Ahmed and Ghosu Muhammad and a daughter Kathija. Alliyar married one Nagoor Meeral and by her he had a son Syed Ahamad and a. daughter Mukkuthi. The plaintiff is the husband of Mukkuthi. Nagoor Meeral, before she married Alliyar, was the widow of one Abu Bucker, by whom she had a son named S.M. Muhammad. Sheik Uduman, the second son of Pakkiri, was married to the seventh defendant. The first defendant is his son and the eighth and ninth defendants are his daughters. Syed Ahamad, the third son of Pakkiri, was married to the tenth defendant. The second and third defendants are his sons and the eleventh and twelfth defendants his daughters. The third defendant died pendente lite and defendants 36 to 39 were added as his legal representatives. Gbosu Muhammad, the fourth son, had three sons, defendants 4, 5 and G and a daughter, the 13 defendant.

(3.) Pakkiri died in 1903. There is no reliable evidence as to the properties left by Pakkiri. Alliyar died on 25 January, 1905. There is documentary evidence that by the date of his death, immoveable properties worth about Rs. 7,000 had been purchased in his name and in the names of his three brothers (vide Exs. P-1 to P-4, D. 8-g, D. g-n and D. 11-y). The extent of land covered by these deeds was about four acres and a half. Alliyar's son Syed Ahamad and his daughter Mukkuthi continued to live with their uncles and in 1913 Mukkuthi was married to the plaintiff. In 1914, Alliyar's widow Nagoor Meeral died, and next year, i.e., in 1915, Alliyar's son Syed Ahamad died. In 1918, Mukkuthi, the plaintiff's wife, died issueless.