JUDGMENT

Agha Haidar, J. - The plaintiffs brought the present suit for a declaration that the decree dated 24th March 1897, was null and void as against them as it was obtained by fraud, active concealment of facts, suppression of evidence and production of perjured evidence, and that the plaintiffs were the legitimate sons of one Ghulam Mohy-ud-din and, as such, were entitled to the property in suit.

2. The facts leading up to the present litigation are somewhat prolix and the history of the case takes us back to the early 80's. For the purpose of understanding the case the following pedigree, which is admitted by the parties to be correct, may be subjoined here:

(For pedigree, please see p. 570)

3. Ghulam Mohy-ud-din alias Gaman had a wife called Mt. Sahib Nur 1, with whom we are not concerned. There was another lady also named Mt. Sahib Nur 2 who was at one time undoubtedly the wife of one Qamar-ud-din. On 19th June 1881, Qamar-ud-Din prosecuted Gaman under Section 498, I.P.C., for having enticed away his wife, Mt. Sahib Nur 2. This complaint was dismissed and Qamar-ud-din was directed by the criminal Courts to bring a suit for the custody of his wife, Mt. Sahib Nur, if he was so advised. Accordingly Qamar-ud-din brought a suit for the restitution of conjugal rights against Mt. Sahib Nur. This suit was, on 1st July 1882, decreed by the trial Court. Mt. Sahib Nur filed an appeal, and, on 1st December 1882, the appeal of Mt. Sahib Nur was allowed and Qamar-ud-din's claim was dismissed. This order, which was passed by Mr. Miller, is on the record and is exhibited as P. 39. It may be mentioned here that in her defence Mt. Sahib Nur had set up a divorce which, she alleged, she had obtained from her husband Qamar-ud-din under a deed of divorce. A further appeal was filed before Mr. A. Perkins, the then Commissioner, and the same was dismissed on 19th April 1883. This judgment is marked as Ex. P. 3.

4. It appears that, after the termination of this litigation, Gaman and Mt. Sahib Nur 2 continued to live together and the present plaintiffs were born to them. On 21st July 1895, Gaman died. It is said that early in 1896 Abdul Hamid, the father of Gaman, turned Mt. Sahib Nur and her children, the plaintiffs, out of his house. On 23rd March 1896, Mt. Sahib Nur, on behalf of herself and her minor sons, brought a suit against Abdul Hamid, the father of Gaman, for maintenance, alleging that she was the widow of his deceased son, Gaman, and her three sons were his legitimate children. Abdul Hamid in his defence pleaded that

Image

there had been no marriage between Gaman, his deceased son, and Mt. Sahib Nur; that Mt. Sahib Nur was not the widow of Gaman and the present plaintiffs, her sons, were not his legitimate children; and that, therefore, none of them was entitled to any maintenance. The District Judge, Raja Jahan Dad Khan, on 24th March 1897, dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. This judgment is very important, as shall appear later on, and is marked as Ex. D. 4.

5. On 7th August 1901, Sher Bahadur, plaintiff 1, brought a suit on his own behalf and also as guardian of his minor brothers, namely, plaintiffs 2 and 3, for a declaration that the plaintiffs were the legitimate children of Gaman by his wife, Mt. Sahib Nur 2. Adul Hamid, the father of Gaman, was the defendant in this suit. This suit was dismissed on 2nd September 1901, on the ground that it was barred by res judicata. An appeal was preferred but was dismissed on 21st February 1902, and an application for revision to the Chief Court was also dismissed on 11th July 1902. The present suit was brought by the plaintiffs on 12th July 1923, for the reliefs already mentioned.

6. It may be mentioned here that, while the suit was contested by the remaining defendants, defendants 1 and 2, sons of Fazal Elahi, admitted the plaintiffs' claim. An argument was based on this admission, but we shall deal with it later on.

7. The contesting defendants to the present suit are defendants 3 and 6. Their pleas