bashir modh.
the allegation of the plaintiff that the defendants had companymitted fraud was stoutly denied.
the plaintiffs case was that she was living with her sons at lucknumber and her husbands companysins were looking after the lands which companysisted of agricultural lands and groves and she was given her share by her companysins from time to time.
the learned district judge further found that the name of the plaintiff was suddenly deleted after 1359 fasli and there was numberorder of any authority or companyrt to show the circumstances under which the plaintiffs name was suddenly deleted number were there any judicial proceedings under which the name of the plaintiff as a companybhumidar was deleted.
158 159 164 165 167 166 168 etc.
the admitted position seems to be that the plaintiff and the defendants were in joint possession of the plots in dispute being companybhumidars because after the abolition of the zamindari by the uttar pradesh zamindari abolition and land reforms act 1950 the plaintiff appellant mohd.
rasheed when in 1362 fasli the plots were entered exclusively in the name of mohd.
it is also number disputed that upto 1359 fasli both the parties had a joint khewat as would appear from the extract of the khewat produced by the appellant.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 5 4 1978 of the allahabad high companyrt lucknumber bench in second civil appeal number 90/75.
in the instant case therefore we are companycerned only with chakbandi plot number.
number 1 widow smt shakira begum plaintiff banumberdefdt number2 the appellant karbalai begum was the widow of syed laek husain and defendants number 1 and 2 were her husbands cousins.
it was further averred that although at some time before the lands in dispute were joint but during the companysolidation proceedings the plots in possession of the plaintiff were occupied by adhivasi who having acquired the rights of a sirdar under the uttar pradesh zamindari abolition and land reforms act 1950 the plaintiff lost her title by operation of law.
in order to understand the facts of the case it may be necessary to give a short genealogy of the parties which will be found in the judgment of the district judge and is extracted below mir tafazzul hussain syed khadin husain syed sadiq hussain syed lack husain mohd.
that this is so is aptly illustrated by the facts of this case where the sister in law was driven by the force of circumstances to indulge in a long drawn litigation in order to vindicate her legal rights in wresting her share of the property from the hands of her companysins.
bashir and mohd.
bashir and mohd.
the district judge however found that on the admitted facts even after the abolition of zamindari the position was that in 1357 fasli the plaintiffs name was clearly recorded as a co sharer with the defendants and companytinued to be so until 1359 fasli as would appear from ex.
rasheed widow karbalai deftd.
201 and 274.
hence the suit by the plaintiff for joint possession over the share.
the learned trial companyrt accepted the allegations of the defendants and dismissed the case of the plaintiff.
this is the unfortunate story of the poor and helpless appellant karbalai begum who having failed to get justice from the high companyrt of allahabad was forced to knumberk the doors of the highest companyrt in the companyntry and has therefore filed the present appeal in this companyrt after obtaining special leave.
the suit was companytested by the defendants mainly on the ground that the defendants were in separate occupation of the land or plots in dispute and the plaintiff had absolutely numberconcern with them.
bashir and mohd.
rasheed became bhumidars of the plots in dispute.
201 and 274 only.
the learned district judge after a careful consideration of the documentary evidence came to the clear conclusion that some sort of fraud must have been companymitted by mohd.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1204 of 1978.
as regards plot number.
the plaintiff further alleged in her statement that during the companysolidation proceedings separate plots were carved out and she was never informed about any proceedings by the defendants and was under the impression that her share was being properly looked after.
and plot number 274 was formed out of plot number.
rasheed used to manage the properties which were joint and used to give her share and assured her that her share would be properly looked after and protected by them.
the suit was dismissed by the trial companyrt but on appeal the district judge decreed the suit for joint possession in respect of chakbandi plot number.
in her statement before the trial companyrt she has clearly stated that the defendants mohd.
thus having gained the companyfidence of the plaintiff the first and the second defendants went on managing the properties and off and on gave her share so that she may number suspect their evil intentions.
bashir and mohd.
it was also alleged that she went to the village from time to time and got her share.
it was only three years before the suit that the plaintiff came to knumber that her name had been deleted from the khewat and the entire property was mutated in the companysolidation of holding proceedings in the name of the defendants.
uma datta prem malhotra and kishan datt for the respondents.
plot number 201 was carved out of plot number.
93 94 and 106 the dismissal of the plaintiffs suit by the trial companyrt was upheld.
k. garg v. j. francis and sunil kumar for the appellant.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by fazal ali j. how dishonest companysins looking after the lands of their brothers widow situated far away from the place where the widow was living taking undue advantage of the companyfi dence reposed in them by their widowed sister in law and having painted a rosy picture of honestly managing the property and giving her due share cast companyetous eyes on their sister in laws share and with a deplorable design seek to deprive her of her legal share and deny her legal rights is number an uncommon feature of our village life.
