V ..... .. V x T about 32 years. IN THE HIGH COURT OF 1<:ARNAT.r.KAAT % DATED THIS THE 051" My EC'? 3 X %% % THE HONBLE .mA}aDA 1.
Ahmed %
S/Q Late ‘I<:t;'ae;1e:~ __I{I1;=;der pasha
erQ§)_Ioy€:§e', age:-{(1 aboi1t'35 years.
2.
S/0 Khadsar @ Khader pasha
Aged abmjt 3.3
A ” » {.9 Laiidabdul Khader @ Khader pasha.
‘- Bee
-.._D/Q~ 1.31.23 Abdui Khader @ Khader pasha
W/’oaMohammed Ismail,
1310 Late. Abdul Khader @ Khader pasha
W/-;:> Afioz Pasha,
Aged about 26 years.
6. Zubaida Ber:
W/0 Late Abdul Khacler @ Khader pasha
Aged about 55 ycarss.
‘~ g3rop.»ei’tyE»___eA§\ras late Abdul Khader @ Khadar
63* defendant as mahar. It is also
‘ 1, 2 te 633 defendants in lieu of p1aintifi”s share in
‘ pmperty..
x of attorney was examined as P.W.1. On behalf of
2. The brief facts of the case are as M
The plaintiff. defendants
daughters sf late Abdul
Defendant I\¥e.6 was wife sf
Pasha. Lats Abdul Knagder végs the
absoiute owner ofsuit plaintiff
ClB1IB’ Cd hel’ “sti1*s…V:’s11it schedule
Tlfe ” §;_id.111i1:t:ing relationship and
also , 0f have contended that suit
co;;:e1mg%s of Rs.50,()0{)/- was paid to p1a:m-m” by
3. ; On behalf of plaintifl” her husband and power
defendants defendant no.3 was examined as D.\V.1.
v{\:.
x judgment has held that suit schedule property was not
Documents filed by plaintifi’ wen:-‘ & x
13.1 to R14. V __ L. V’
4. The learned
issues: ‘ ‘ A’ V5
1. Whether the 4′ of
suit fiven in the
._ if “” ”
suit schedule
“”” ‘iv’a§ :j;1 father Khader Sab,
the time of daath?
3. A Wlietiiex No.6 proves that the suit
1 ‘ ~ was given to her by
V. Khadef ‘Pasha in fieu of Mehr and as such,
. . T _ “._ t=-h@: is_abso1ute owner of it?
– entitled to 1/ mm shame in the suit
property?
1 Whether court fee mid is insufiicient?
Is plainfifi’ entitled to injunction sought for ?
What. older’? What decree?
am on
The trial ceurt by the reasoning of impugled
1″‘\}_C~;¢€(\.,\..£,gs.-‘v’9Ll~’
x T (2) Whether defem-1am~.s–1, 2 and 4 to 5 had paid
given by late mam Khader @ Khadar Pash’a3__”l?;?L)f::
VI-defendant in lieu of Mehar.
negatived Cfllltfifltiflfi}. of d¢fe:}da;ii:s ti1at
Rs.50,000/- was paid to
The learned. trial judge éfitotney
is COIflP€teI1t ti? gmffi 9» ‘
defendants
and learned? I have
been fimpugned judgment.
Now the fzQi1§.tS are:
(_1)_ §Vhe_1::’i1::r.*– have proved that suit
3 V. prppe1;fyV”ivaS given by late Abdul Khader @
3 * Pasha to his Wiff: V’1~defendani: in
jzof Mehar?
Rs.5(),0O/-to plaintiff in lieu «of her share in
suit schedule property? i
1.-‘\, Q_,v\E/L9’-‘
‘~.I
Khader and II-defendant. The defendants
produced any dcrcument to establish ‘i;ha_t 2
was tI’°aI1Sf6ITt’:d by late Abdul
in favour of his wife \r:-defenda.~§§; % %
3. The oral m«av;:% afxa VI-
defendant is i11consisteI;f;.VA iyf acvfiptable
evidenw, the in holding
that that suit property
was @’v<j:ii3iiy' Pasha to his
wife V1-dVé:fc::nda1':t,V ' ~ V ~ .. .. ' é
9. Khatiza t:Xtfract produced as per EX.P. I I
shoxys_§:AAfI1at sijit property stood in the mama of
@ Khader Pasha till the year 1986
e of I–defenda11t was entered. In View
V -of abfifé’ court has held suit property belonged
. ‘ “ism; Khader @ Khader Pasha and he had not
– diazposition.
evidence. Therefore, learned tn’:al”‘x.¥Lu1ge 2
rfijected contention of defendants. A’
11. For the reasons held
that defendants have te pleeeety was
given by late Abzimlv to his wife
in lieu of to prove
plaintiff ‘ defendants and
refinquiehed suii; property.
‘ftje 1′.e.sLih’., the following:
is dismissed. Having regard to
rele.ti{§I1$I’&i{§: eI”TV.parties, they are directed to bear their
‘ ” ~ 5i.”f’-._VCeets.
Sd/3
J 1idg”*’é
Sub/’