Find a Lawyer

Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1981, decided on 25th May, 1982.

‑‑ S. 3 read with Succession Act (VIIXIX of 1.925), Ss. 372 & 373 --Successsion certificate‑District Judge issuing succession certificate to widow of deceased=Deceased's other relatives alleging, widow divorced six Months, prior to death‑Appellant, brother of deceased, found to have no knowledge of alleged divorce‑Witnesses contradicting each other such fact‑Presence of widow admitted in house of deceased at time of his death‑Held, appraisal of evidence on record shows that tyrants (reversioners) want to deprive poor lady (widow) of inheritance of her husband and in doing so, case fabricated. Muhammad Riaz Inqalabi for Appellant.

Ch. Muhammad Bashir for Respondents.

Date of institution : 12th March, 1981.

: This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17‑2‑1981 passed by the learned District Judge Mirpur. By the impugned order a succession certificate was issued to Mst. Arshad Begum respondent as widow of Muhammad Sultan deceased alongwith the other heirs of the said deceased. The application for issuance of certificate was moved by the widow herself and on behalf of her minor daughter Mst. Farzana Bibi respondent. acting as her next friend before the District Judge. The application was opposed to by the mother, brothers and sisters of the deceased alleging that Mst. Arshad Begum respondent was a divorce of Muhammad Sultan deceased who divorced her six months prior to his death occurred on 29‑1‑1977. The date of death is admitted one.

Against the impugned decision an appeal was also filed by Mst. Said Bibi, proforma‑respondent, mother of the deceased which was dismissed by Mr. Justice Abdul Majid Mallick, a learned Judge of this Court as he then was on 12‑11‑1981. He dealt with the appeal as a Single Judge whereas this was a Division Bench case as the jurisdictional value of the appeal was more than Rs. 9,000 and so the instant appeal was taken up as a Division Bench case.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record we have come to the conclusion that appellant has no case in appeal. Alif Din appellant himself appeared as a witness of his own to depose that Mst. Arshad Begum was a divorce of his brother but when he was put to test of cross‑examination, he was found to have no knowledge of the alleged divorce. He in answer to a question stated that divorce was reduced to writing but in the same breath he deposed that it was not a written divorce but an oral one. His statement is indicative of the fact that nothing with regard to the alleged divorce had ever happened. His two witnesses, namely, Ghaalib and Mushtaq Ahmad were produced to testify the fact of divorce, 'who made their statements woven by falseness. Ghaalib D. W. states that it was during winter that the divorce was pronounced by Muhammad Sultan deceased in his presence as well‑ as in presence of the members of his (deceased) family and that there was none else at the relevant time except Ghaalib himself and the members of the family of the deceased out of whom Alif Din appellant appeared as a witness of his own whose statement is worthless on its very fact. Another witness Mushtaq Ahmad D. W. states that it was in his presence as well as in presence of the members of the family of the deceased and Ghaalib D. W. that divorce was pronounced by the husband of Afst. Arshad Begum. The presence of this witness on the occasion claimed is evidently, ruled out by the statement of Ghaalib D. W. At the time of death of Muhammad Sultan, his wife Mst. Arshad Begum was found present in his house according to the very statement of Mushtaq Ahmad, D. W. The minor daughter of Mst. Arshad Begum was hardly of a year or so at the time of death of her father and her (Mst. Arshad Begum's) absence from the house of the husband was shown in such a way as if for years together she remained separate from her husband at the house of her parents, though she was found present in the house of her husband at the time of his death. It all goes to show that tyrants (reversioners) want to deprive a poor lady from the inheritance of her husband and in doing so a case was fabricated by them.

That being so, we dismiss this appeal with costs amounting to Rs. 500 which shall be payable to Mst. Arshad Begum respondent by the appellant.

K. M. A. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.