The estate of a widow who inherited from her husband under the Hanafi School of Mohammedan Law would devolve upon her parental side and not upon the heirs of the husband.

Harish Tandon, J.

This revisional application is directed against an order No. 47 dated April 21, 2015 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baruipur, 24 Parganas South in Title Suit No. 55 of 2009 by which an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is rejected.

2. It would be relevant to record the salient facts allegedly constituting the cause of action narrated in the plaint before proceeding to deal with the points urged by the defendant in an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiffs claimed the following reliefs in the plaint :

"(a) a decree of declaration that deed being No. 206 for the year 1942 is a collusive document and by the said document Akchhed Ali Mondal's one-third share is not affected and the plaintiffs and proforma-defendants are the joint owners of his share;

(b) a preliminary decree for partition declaring one third share of the plaintiffs in the suit property;

(c) Certain time to be given to the plaintiffs for making amicable partition of the suit property in terms of the preliminary decree and on the failure of the parties, a survey passed Advocate Commissioner be appointed for effecting partition of the property in terms of the preliminary decree and on the basis of his report final decree be passed;

(d) for a decree of declaration that the defendants have no right, title and interest and possession over one third share left by Akchhed Ali Mondal of the property and Deed No. 206 of 1942 in respect of the suit property is not binding upon the plaintiffs;

(e) for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering or disturbing in respect of one third share of the plaintiffs in the suit property;

(f) for a decree of all costs of the suit;

(g) for a decree of any other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiffs are entitled under law and equity."

3. The plaint case proceeds with one Lutfar @ Notai Mondal was the owner of the subject property and had five sons, namely, Beni Mondal, Babu Mondal, Sabu Mandal, Katil Mondal and Sahebjan Mondal. Two of his sons, namely, Babu Mondal and Sabu Mondal died during the lifetime of Lutfar Mondal. Beni Mondal had one son, namely, Akchhed Mondal who had no issue except two wives, who were alive at the time of his death. The other son, namely, Katil Mondal had one son, Amjad Ali Mondal whose sons are the plaintiffs in the instant suit. Saheb Chand Mondal had a son, namely, Fakir Md. Mondal, who is also arrained as proforma defendant in the instant suit. According to the plaintiffs the two sons who died during the lifetime of Lutfar Mondal did not inherit any shares in the estate left by him in view of Hanafi Law of inheritance and, therefore, his share devolved upon the three sons, namely, Beni Mondal, Katil Mondal and Saheb Chand Mondal who had undivided 1/3rd share therein. Upon the death of the aforesid three sons the properties devolved upon Akchhed Mondal, Amjad Mondal and Fakir Mondal having 1/3rd each therein and the C.S. record of right was prepared in their names.

4. It is further alleged that Akchhed died in the year 1939 and his two wives subsequently died and, therefore, his share would devolve upon the surviving nephews in equal shares.

5. The challenge is further made to a deed no. 206 of 1942 executed by the father of the plaintiffs and the proforma defendants whereby he transferred and conveyed his right in favour of a third party who in turn sold the properties to the defendant companies. The challenge is also made to the said deed on the premise that the father of the plaintiffs, namely, Amjad Ali Mondal was minor at the time of execution and registration of the said alleged deed and in absence of any guardian being appointed on his behalf, the entire transfer is illegal and cannot convey the valid title in favour of the ultimate predecessors. The knowledge of the said deed is imputed in the first week of April, 2006 and the suit appears to have been filed in the