Skip to content


Kaniz Fatima Begam Vs. Sakina Bibi and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1914All475; (1914)ILR36All318; 25Ind.Cas.120
AppellantKaniz Fatima Begam
RespondentSakina Bibi and ors.
Excerpt:
act no. xxiii of 1871 (petitions act), section ii - pension--grant of land by government--sanad--construction of document--execution of decree--civil procedure code (1908), section 60 (g). - - the rights of karim khan and his descendants must, however, be determined by reference to the original sanad of the 13th of august, 1819. the terms of that sanad distinctly show that, whatever rights may have been given to karim khan himself for his life-time, an absolute estate in the property in suit was given to his descendants......main objection was that the said property was granted to an ancestor of ghulam mohi-ud-din, called karim khan, a pindari chief, for political considerations, and, therefore, constituted a 'political pension' and hence was incapable of being attached and sold in execution of the decree of musammat kaniz fatima begam. the learned subordinate judge accepted the objection and rejected the two applications. the widow of ghulam mohi-ud-din, that is, the decree-holder, has come up in appeal to this court. she contends that the property which she is seeking to attach and sell in execution of her decree was not granted to karim khan as a political pension. on the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contends that the property in question does fall under the definition of 'political.....
Judgment:

Muhammad Rafiq and Piggott, JJ.

1. These two appeals, Execution First Appeal No. 24 and No. 25 of 1918 are connected. The appellant in both the cases is Musammat Kaniz Fatima Begam, the widow of one Ghulam Mohi-ud-din Ashraf Khan. She obtained a decree against the estate of her husband for her dower. In execution of her decree she applied for the attachment of certain landed property, alleging it to have belonged to her deceased husband. She sought execution by two separate applications, one for costs and the other for the recovery of the dower debt, and in both the applications she sought to attach the landed property of her deceased husband. The applications were opposed by some of the legal representatives of Ghulam Mohi-ud-din, who were in possession with others of his property. The main objection was that the said property was granted to an ancestor of Ghulam Mohi-ud-din, called Karim Khan, a Pindari Chief, for political considerations, and, therefore, constituted a 'political pension' and hence was incapable of being attached and sold in execution of the decree of Musammat Kaniz Fatima Begam. The learned Subordinate Judge accepted the objection and rejected the two applications. The widow of Ghulam Mohi-ud-din, that is, the decree-holder, has come up in appeal to this Court. She contends that the property which she is seeking to attach and sell in execution of her decree was not granted to Karim Khan as a political pension. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents contends that the property in question does fall under the definition of 'political pension.' He bases his contention on three letters of Revenue officers, dated 1846-1853. Those letters passed between the Board of Revenue, the Commissioner of the division and the Collector of Gorakhpur, and gave, no doubt, some support to the argument for respondents. But we cannot treat them as anything more than a mere expression of opinion by the board of Revenue as to the right of the jagirdars in the lands granted to them. The rights of Karim Khan and his descendants must, however, be determined by reference to the original sanad of the 13th of August, 1819. The terms of that sanad distinctly show that, whatever rights may have been given to Karim Khan himself for his life-time, an absolute estate in the property in suit was given to his descendants. They have, therefore, a heritable and transferable right in the, estate in question. The point under discussion is covered, in our opinion, by two rulings of this Court viz. Lachmi Narain v. Makund Singh (1904) I. L. R. 26 All. 617 and Amna Bibi v. Najm-un-nissa (1909) I. L. R. 31 All. 382. We, therefore, allow the two appeals, set aside the orders of the court below and remand the cases to it for disposal according to law. Costs are allowed to the appellants.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //