A Muhammadan widow's right to possession of her husband's property in lieu of dower debt is a right restricted to her personally and is not capable of alienation under Section 6(d) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

1. In the suit which is the subject-matter of this appeal the plaintiffs asked for a decree for possession with mesne profits with regard to 14 annas share in certain raiyati lands and a dilapidated house described in Schedule 1 of the plaint. The following pedigree will indicate the relationship between the parties:

SALAMAT

______________|__________________

| | | |

Sakram Saliman Marian Tetu

| |

Bashiruddin Naffisa (defnt. 2)

_____________

| |

Zobair Ahmed Zaibunnisa

(plaintiff 1) (plaintiff 2)

Bashiruddin, who was admittedly the owner of the 16 annas of the property, died in the year 1937. It appears that on 7-5-1945, Naffisa and Bibi Saliman executed a sale-deed (Ext. B) in favour of defendant No. 1 in respect of the 16 annas share in the properties in dispute. This sale-deed was executed by Bibi Naffisa on her own behalf as well as the guardian of her two children, namely, the two plaintiffs. After attaining majority the two plaintiffs filed the present suit for recovery of possession of their 14 annas share in the properties. The allegation was that their mother had no right to convey the property to defendant No. 1. The suit was contested by defendant No. 1 on the ground that defendant No. 2 came in possession of the properties in lieu of her dower debt, that defendant No. 2 was appointed the executor of the properties of Bashiruddian and the legal guardian of the plaintiffs and that the transaction was for the benefit of the plaintiffs and it could not, therefore, be impeached. The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs but that decree has been set aside by the lower appellate court in appeal.

2 The main question of law involved in this case is whether defendant No. 1 acquired a valid title to the property in dispute by virtue of the sale deed (Ext. B) executed by Naffisa and Bibi Saliman in favour of defendant No. 1 with regard to the 10 annas share of the properties. The lower appellate court has construed the document (Ext. B) as showing that the widow Naffisa had transferred her rights of possession as the holder of the property in lieu of her dower debt and not an absolute transfer of 16 annas share in favour of defendant No. 1. Accordingly the lower appellate court has held that Naffisa transferred ner right of possession which would enure to her in her lifetime or until her dower debt was satisfied in favour of defendant No. 1. For these reasons the lower appellate court has held that defendant No. 1 had validly acquired the right of possession of the disputed properties by virtue of the document (Ext. B) executed by Naffisa and Bibi Saliman. The lower appellate court has, therefore, dismissed the suit brought by the plaintiffs for recovery of possession,

3. In holding that the widow Naffisa had transferred the right of possession and the transferee had acquired the right of possession by the document (Ext. B) till the lifetime of Naffisa or until the dower debt was satisfied the lower appellate court has followed the decision of a Division Bench of this High Court in Abdur Rahman V/s. Wall Mohammad, 4 Pat LT 267 : (AIR 1923 Pat 72), where it was held by Dawson Miller, C.J. and Mullick, J. that according to the Muhammadan Law the widow has the right to possession of the properties of her husband in lieu of the dower debt, and so long as her dower debt remains unsatisfied and she does not transfer the dower debt itself she can transfer for her lifetime possession of the property.

There is a similar decision in Mt. Bibi Makbulunnissa V/s. Mt. Bibi Umatunnissa, 4 Pat LT 272 : (AIR 1923 Pat 33) where Courts and Das, JJ. held that the right of the Muhammadan widow to hold the property as a security for the dower debt and to continu