JUDGMENT

1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against the decree dated 24th April 1930 of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Gonda reversing the decision dated 27th July 1929 of the Munsif of that place.

2. The plaintiff appellant Mt. Lachhman Dei is the daughter of one Mahabir. She claimed a decree for possession in respect of a 1 anna 10 pies 17| krants share in village Rakhpurwa, a hamlet of village Ram Bhari, and 11 pies 8 krants in village Kapurjote, on the allegation that the shares abovementioned were owned and possessed by her father Mahabir who died on 11th July 1902. He was succeeded by his widow, the plaintiff's mother, Mt. Phulsera who also died on 18th May 1923. She also alleged that Mt. Phulsera had executed three sale deeds in respect of the property in suit in favour of the defendants and pleaded that the sales in question, were made without legal necessity and were not binding on the plaintiff. She however expressed her readiness to pay any portion of the consideration of the aforesaid sale deeds which was found to be for legal necessity. On the above allegations the plaintiff claimed to be entitled to succeed to the property in suit after the death of Mt. Phulsera as the heir of her father Mahabir.

3. The defendants resisted the suit on various grounds. Two of them, with which we are concerned in this appeal were that by virtue of a custom obtaining in the family of Mahabir widows inherit their husband's property as full owners with complete right of alienation and daughters are absolutely excluded from inheritance. Thus they pleaded that Mt. Phulsera had full power to alienate the property and that the plaintiff was not entitled to maintain the suit as she was excluded from inheritance.

4. The finding of the learned Munsif was against the defendants in respect of both the customs set up by them. In dealing with the other issues which arose in the case, he found that Mahabir owned only a 1 anna 10 pies 17 3/4 krants share in Rakhpurwa and a 6 pies 9 5/16 krants share in Kapurjote and that only Rs. 150 out of the consideration for one of the sale deeds was for legal necessity. As a result of these findings he decreed the plaintiff's suit for possession of the shares just mentioned subject to the condition of the plaintiff paying Rs. 150 to the defendants.

5. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge held that the learned Munsif made a mistake in giving the plaintiff a decree for a 1 anna 10 pies 17 3/4 krants share in Rakhpurwa and that she can in no case get a decree for more than a 1 anna 3 pies 13 5/16 krants share of that village. On the question of custom he agreed with the learned Munsif that the custom of exclusion of daughters had not been established but disagreed with him in respect of the other custom. His finding in respect of it was that a widow, according to the family custom, succeeds to the estate of her husband as full owner with power of alienation. His conclusion was that the plaintiff's suit must fail on this ground and he accordingly dismissed the suit.

6. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff appellant has challenged the correctness of the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge with regard to the custom about widows succeeding as full owners. The learned Counsel for the defendants-respondents, on the other hand, has disputed the correctness of the finding of both the lower Courts with regard to the custom of exclusion of daughters set up by them. So the only question which we are called upon to decide in this case is as regards the two family customs above stated. The parties are agreed that the determination of these customs rests entirely upon the construction to be placed upon the Wajibularaiz of Kapurjote and Ram Bhari, the two villages in which the properties in dispute are situate. There is no oral or any other documentary evidence on this point on either side. Both these Wajibularaiz were verified by all the co-sharers of the two villages, amongst whom is included Sheo Govind who was a