The main legal point established is the exclusive ownership of properties acquired by the mother under Muslim law, leading to the division of such properties among her children.

Pradeep Kumar, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants and learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-plaintiffs and respondent-defendants.

2. It is important to note that defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have filed this appeal and the plaintiff is respondent No. 1 and rest defendant Nos. 7 to 11 are respondents in the case.

3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11.07.2000 (decree signed on 22.07.2000) passed by Sri Ajit Prasad Verma, Sub-Judge-IX, Ranchi in Partition Suit No. 164 of 1993 53 of 2000, by which judgment after discussing the case of the parties, the learned Subordinate Judge came to a conclusive finding that the plaintiff is entitled to gel partition with respect to the properties mentioned in Item Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of Schedule A of the plaint, Item No. 3 of Schedule B of the plaint and Item No. 12 of Schedule C of the Plaint. Separate takhta will be carved out by appointment of survey knowing pleader commissioner at the time of preparation of final decree. The decree was passed against contesting defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and ex-parte against other defendant, since they did not contest the suit.

4. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellants that the properties in Schedule A item Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were recorded properties in the name of their mother Bibi Jainab and they were purchased vide Ext. A/2, A/3 and A/4. Ext. A/3 was executed by Md. Yakub, the father of the appellants and defendants, to his wife Most. Jainab in lieu of Dawar debt and Ext. A/2 was also purchased by Most. Jainab in her name. Ext. A/4 was also purchased by Bibi Jainab, and as such, these properties of Item Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of Schedule A and Item No. 3 of Schedule B can be partitioned only between the sons and daughters of Bibi Jainab as per the Muslim law. He has submitted that the trial court has wrongly decided the issue considering the principles of Hindu law, where a property is not the absolute property of a female, if the source, from which, the property has been purchased is proved to be of the joint family or by the husband, then it will not be considered to the property of the female. But, in the Muslim law, all the properties in the name of muslim lady belongs to her irrespective of source of money, from which, it was purchased. There is no concept of jointness in Muslim law, and as such, the learned trial court committed an error of law in deciding that entire properties will be partitioned between all the seventeen heirs of Md. Yakub and thereby granting 1/17 shares to the plaintiffs and defendants.

5. In fact, the properties of Most. Jainab will be only distributed among the three sons, who are the three appellant-defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3, who will get 2/10th share each and their sister, the plaintiff, Mahmudi Khatoon, defendant No. 4, Ahmadi Khatoon, defendant No. 5, Shagira Khatoon and defendant No. 6, Munira Khatoon will get 1/10th share each being the sons and daughters of Md. Yakub from his wife Most. Jainab, in whose name, the properties stand.

6. On the other hand, the plaintiff, who have appeared in the appeal as respondent No. 1 admits the claim of the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and submits that although the plaintiffs, who are daughters of Md. Yakub and Most. Jainab claimed in the plaint that the properties in Schedule A Item No. 1 and Item No. 2 were acquired by Md. Yakub, her father, but in the face of the sale deeds Ext. A/2 and A/3 admits that they are exclusive properties of Most. Jainab and also admits that she is entitled to only 1/10th share in Schedule A Item Nos. 1, 2 and 3, Item No. 3 of Schedule B. The properties of Schedule C, which is the property of her father, all the sons and daughters are entitled to get equal shares; in the same. However, other defendants, who are respondent Nos. 2 to 9 (h), who had Not contested the suit in the trial court submitted that since the plaintiff admitted in her plaint that the properties namely, Item Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in Schedu