JUDGMENT

1. These two connected appeals arise out of a suit for possession of zamindari shares in certain villages specified in the plaint and for manse profits.

2. The relationship between the parties would appear from the following pedigree.

            Hidayat Ullah Khan=Masrur-un-nissa                            |-------------------------------------------------------|                 |            |                      |Amanat Ullah   Mohit Ullah    Halima Begam   Azmat Ullah--Kaniz               Defendant      Plaintiff      Fatima Defendant               No. 1                          No. 2

3. Hidayat Ullah Khan the father of Halima Begam the plaintiff had zamindari property in two villages Akbarpur and Bisaulia. His wife Musammat Masrur-un-nissa (the plaintiffs mother) owned property in two other villages Bilauna and Harairpur. Hidayat, Ullah died in 1885 and Masrur-un-nissa died in 1890, leaving three sons Amanat Ullah, Azmat Ullah and Mohit Ullah (defendant No. 1) and one daughter Halima Begam the plaintiff.

4. The plaintiff's case is that on the death of her father and mother she succeeded to a share of 40 sihams out of 280 sihams in her parents' property in the four villages. Her eldest brother Amanat Ullah died in 1905 and she inherited, a further share of 16 sihams out-of 280 as his heir. She, therefore, claims 56 sihams out of 280 sihams in the four villages as heir to her father, mother and eldest brother.

5. Azmat Ullah her younger brother died on 28th of January, 1925, leaving a widow Kaniz Fatima (defendant No. 2,) Plaintiff claims as heir of Azmat Ullah 28 siham out of 280 sihams in the ancestral property and a quarter share in 6 bighas 12 biswas which Azmat Ullah purchased in Bilauna. Azmat Ullah's property is in possession of his widow Kaniz Fatima in lieu of her dower debt. According to the plaintiff, the dower debt was Rs. 1,000 only and the plaintiff claims possession of her share in Azmat Ullah's estate upon payment of her proportionate share, namely, one-quarter of the dower debt, to Kaniz Fatima.

6. The plaintiff alleges that she lived on good terms with her brothers and did not know whether mutation had been effected in her favour as heir of her parents and of her brother Amanat Ullah but on the death of Azmat Ullah, a dispute arose regarding the mutation and 6he discovered that she was only recorded as the owner of 16 out of 280 sihams in Bilauna, Hamirpur and Bisaulia. She claims, therefore, 58 sihams in Akbarpur and 40 siham in the other three villages without any payment and claims further 28 sihams in all the four villages and one-quarter of 6 bighas 12 biswas in Bilauna on payment of Rs. 250 to Kaniz Fatima.

7. The plaintiff's claim in respect of Akbarpur and Bisaulia is not disputed.

8. As regards Bilauna, the principal defence is that the plaintiff relinquished her share in her mother's estate in Bilauna and that the defendants have been in adverse possession of the share claimed by the plaintiff for more than 12 years. Kaniz Fatima contended that her dower debt was Rs. 12,000 and not Rs. 1,000. As regards the 6 bighas 12 biswas purchased by Azmat Ullah in Bilauna, Mohit Ullah contended that although the property was purchased in the name of Azmat Ullah, it was in fact purchased jointly by Azmat Ullah and Mohit Ullah who each paid half the purchase money; so the plaintiff is only entitled to a quarter share in one half of that property.

9. As regards the claim to a share in Hamirpur, the principal defence was that the, claim was barred u/s 233 (k) of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, as the village had been partitioned and in the partition proceedings the plaintiff was allotted a share corresponding to the share entered in her name in the khewat and her suit for a larger share is now barred.

10. The trial Court held that the Alleged relinquishment by the plaintiff of her share in her mother's estate in Bilauna was not proved and it was not proved that the defendants have been in adverse possession of t