This matter is listed for admission.

Heard the appellants counsel and also the counsel

appearing for the respondents.

2. The factual matrix of the case are, the property

belongs to one Sri.Syed Shamshuddin Sab and he died

intestate and suit is filed for the relief of partition claiming

share in the property by one of the daughter and made the

sons and other daughters of Syed Shamshuddin Sab as

defendants. The Trial Court having considered both oral and

documentary evidence has decreed the suit and granted the

relief of 1/9^th share each to the daughters and 2/9^th share each

to the sons of said Syed Shamshuddin Sab. Being aggrieved by

the judgment and decree of the Trial Court passed in

O.S.No.72/2013, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate

Court in R.A.No.56/2021 and First Appellate Court also on re-

appreciation

of

both

oral

and

documentary

evidence,

particularly the documents and evidence of DWs.1 and 2

- 4 -

formulated the points, whether Trial Court has committed an

error in granting the relief of partition and whether it requires

interference?

3. On re-appreciation comes to the conclusion that the

Trial Court is justified in granting the relief and answered the

point as negative and confirmed the judgment of the Trial

Court. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial

Court and First Appellate Court against the concurrent finding,

the present appeal is filed before this Court.

4. The main substantive question of law urged by the

appellants’ counsel before this Court is that, the concurrent

finding is misreading the evidence on record and in the absence

of proof of relationship in the cogent material and reasoning is

not satisfactory, no acceptable evidence is placed before the

Court. The counsel would vehemently contend that the Trial

Court and the First Appellate Court have committed an error in

decreeing the suit of the respondent by ignoring the document

Ex.D1- partition deed and in the absence of any prayer sought

in the nature of declaration, questioning the validity of the said

document is erroneous and both the Courts have committed an

- 5 -

error and to frame the substantive question of law and to admit

the appeal.

5. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the respondent

would submit that the Trial Court has not committed any error

and having taken note of the parties are Muslims and also

taken note of sharers of the parties, while answering issue No.3

rightly taken note that daughters are entitled to 1/9^th share and

sons are entitled for 2/9^th share, since there are three

daughters and three sons and not committed any error. The

First Appellate Court also rightly comes to the conclusion with

regard to the share is concerned. But main contention of the

appellants’ counsel that document Ex.D1 is not considered by

both the Courts. The very said contention also cannot be

accepted for the reason that, the document is only in between

the sons of said Syed Shamshuddin Sab and though document

is registered document, excluded the daughters, partition was

made between the sons and when such being the case, when

the father died intestate and not executed any testamentary

document, the daughters and also the sons are entitled for a

share. Under the Mohammedan law, daughters are entitled for

- 6 -

half (½) the share of sons and the same is also taken note of

by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and when

the

sons

have

excluded

the

daughters

of

said

Syed

Shamshuddin Sab and got the document registered in terms of

Ex.D1 and the same cannot be considered and both the Courts

have not committed any error in not accepting the document at

Ex.D1 and the very contention of the appellants’ counsel cannot

be accepted and there are no grounds to frame any substantive

question of law by admitting the appeal and hence, the appeal

is liable to be dismissed.

6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

Appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

AP

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66