BHARGAVA, J.—This is an appeal from the judgment and decree dated 10th December, 1958, of the District Judge, Kota.

2. Rahim Bux and Mohammed Subhan originally instituted the suit for partition of immovable properties mentioned in para 4(1), (2) and (3) in the plaint situated in the city of Kota. Mohammed Subhans name was subsequently removed from the array of plaintiffs and the suit continued at the instance of Rahim Bux alone. During the pendency of this appeal, Rahimbux died and Mohammed Subhan was substituted as his legal representative vide order of this Court dated 21st January, 1965. Plaintiffs case is that his ancestor Ibrahim had seven sons and the suit properties were acquired by them with their joint earnings. It is alleged that the parties were subsequently converted to Muslim religion, but a custom still prevails among them that a female does not get any share in the property of the deceased. It is alleged that Yasin one of the sons of Ibrahim died issueless, Gulab Mohammed died issueless and Ilias and Gendaji died without leaving any male issue. Plaintiff, therefore, claimed half share in the entire property. Defendants were alleged to have the remaining half share in the property in the proportion that Shaffiuddin defendant No. 1 and Abdulla defendant No. 2 had 9/40th share each and Chhotia, Azimulla Allahnoor defendants Nos. 3, 4 and 5 respectively l/60th share each. It was alleged that parties had been in joint possession of the suit property and have been sharing its profits, but for some time the defendants had denied the plaintiffs right in the property and discontinued giving him the share of profits and so the suit is instituted. As stated earlier, the suit was originally instituted against five defendants who are all in the line of Ahmedji, one of the sons of Ibrahim. Descendants of Mohammadji Ilyas Quadir and Gendaji and some of the descendants of Ahmedji were not impleaded in the suit for the reason that by custom the females were excluded from inheritance. Descendants of Mohammedji, who was described as Gulab Mohammed in the plaint, were not impleaded as party on the ground that he had died issueless. During the suit, Azimulla defendant No. 4 died and his son Abdul Samand and Mst. Bafati, his wife, were brought on record as his legal representatives.

3. Allahanoor defendant admitted the plaintiffs claim but the other defendants contested the suit and they submitted a pedigree table of all the descendants of Ibrahim which the lower court after trial has found to be the correct one. The contesting defendants denied that the plaintiff had any share in the suit property. It was stated that the properties had been acquired after the death of Quasim that is the grandfather of Rahim Bux and so the plaintiff did not have any share in the properties. Existence of custom by which females were excluded from inheritance was also denied. It was stated that all the descendants of Mohammedji, Ahmedji Ilyas Quadir and Genda, both male and female, whose names had been shown in the pedigree-table, were necessary parties to the suit. It was also stated that the contesting defendants were in exclusive possession of the suit properties and in regard to property No. 1 and 3 of para 4 it was stated that the contesting defendants had become their full owners because of certain transfers made in their, favour by the other co-sharers. No case was set up in the written statement that any other descendants of the sons of Ibrahim other than the contesting defendants was in possession of the suit properties.

4. Issues were framed in the case on 9-11-1948 and then the following issues were framed on 20th July, 1954—

(1) Whether the plaintiff has half share in the suit property?

(2) What is the property liable to be partitioned?

(3) Whether the suit is within limitation?

(4) Whether the suit property was acquired by all the sons of Ibrahim and they purchased it by their own earnings?

(5) Whether there is a custom among the Muslim Luhars of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document