JUDGMENT

Oldfield, J. - This suit was brought on a bond, dated the 28th October 1878, executed by Amir Begam, widow of one Ghulam Rasul Khan, in consideration of an advance of Rs. 3,000. The plaintiff sought a decree for principal, with interest, and sale of the 5 biswas share in a village which the bond purported to hypothecate. The suit has been decreed in the Court below against the widow, Amir Begam, and against the son, Ali Sher Khan; but so far as it sought to make the shares of the five daughters of Ghulam Rasul Khan liable, and so far as it sought to interfere with a prior bond in respect of a 2 1/2 biswas share of the property, and the right of the respondents Alam Singh and others (auction purchasers), the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. The appeal is preferred by the plaintiff against that portion of the decision of the lower Court which was given against him.

2. The hypothecation-bond sued on purports to be made in the name of Amir Begam herself, in respect of her own property, acting on her own behalf and in her own right; and the suit also was brought on the allegation that the property hypothecated was owned and possessed by the executant of the bond; and it has not been brought on the footing that she held the property in any way for the other heirs of Ghulam Rasul Khan. The whole of the property hypothecated clearly was not held by her in her own right. The five daughters of Ghulam Rasul Khan had a right to shares in the same as heirs of their father, and for this right they brought suits and obtained decrees, as they were fully entitled to do. I do not see that there was any fraud or collusion, and, in my opinion, the lower Court was right in exempting this set of defendants from all liability to the plaintiff.

3. The next point urged, namely, that the appellant is entitled to bring to sale the property bought by the auction-purchasers Alam Singh and others also fails. The hypothecation-bond, upon which the decree and sale proceeded, was a prior one dated the 17th October 1876, and the property was purchased by Alam Singh and others on the 31st January 1884. The appellant's hypothecation-bond being the later one, the transaction could only be questioned on the ground of fraud, of which there appears to be none whatever. For the above reasons the decision of the lower Court must be affirmed and this appeal dismissed with costs. The two sets of respondents will be entitled to costs in proportion separately.

Mahmood, J.

3. I am of the same opinion. The facts of the case are simple enough, namely, that the deceased Ghulam Rasul Khan died sometime in the year 1872, leaving as his heirs, according to Muhammadan law, a widow named Amir Begam, a son named Ali Sher Khan, and five daughters named Jafri Begam, Wilayati Begam, Nawab Begam, Nihali Begam, and Sakina Begam. It is clear that immediately on the death of Ghulam Rasul Khan, according to the rigid system of inheritance which is to be found in the sacred texts of the Kuran, his property devolved in specific portions on these seven persons, who were his heirs. What happened afterwards was, that in respect of such of his property as consisted of land paying Government revenue, instead of the names of all the heirs being entered in the Government records, the name of the old lady alone was entered. This is often done among Muhammadans out of respect to the mother of a family; but on the part of the appellant there has, in the present instance, been a very faint attempt to make out that the Begam was put in possession of the whole property in this manner in lieu of dower. This might be made out, of course, where there were adequate grounds, and when such grounds were supported by adequate evidence-But in the present case there are no grounds for such a contention. It was further urged that her position as head of the family entitled her to deal with the property, so as to bind all the members of the family, though using her name only. But that is not so; and the argument