1855,

NISSA

υ.

NISSA.

and sought to recover very considerable real as well AMEER-OON- as personal estate belonging to his deceased brother, Seyud Moostefah, with mesne profits. The ResponMOORAD-OON dent, Moorad-oon-Nissa, was in possession, and she claimed a lien upon the same as the widow of the deceased, under a deed of dower executed by Seyud Moostefah in her favour to the amount of Rs. 64,000. The other Respondents, Gholam Abbas and Sooltan Ali, claimed under the twofold character of adopted sons and as the grandchildren and heirs of the deceased Seyud Moostefuh.

The circumstances of the case were as follows:

Seyud Moostefuh, late of Roostoomnugur, in the Zillah of Moradabad, in the North-Western Provinces, a Zemindar and a Mahomedan of the Shiah or Immameeuh sect, was seised and possessed of the Zemindary of Mouza Roostoommugur, Gundhopoora, and other lands, situate in Pergunnahs Seondara and Kundurkhee, and of houses, besides moveable estate and effects of about the value of Rs. 70,000.

On the 4th of October, 1833, Seyud Moostefuh died intestate, without children, but leaving Seyud Abdoollah, since deceased, his younger brother, and as such, by the Mahomedan law applicable to the Shiah sect, his sole heir. At the time of his death, Seyud Abdool

Shiah sect, claimingthe wholeofthe deceased's estate, and formesne profits, the issues raised by the pleadings were: first, whether a marriage had taken place between the deceased and the party in possession, who claimed to be his widow; and secondly, the validity of a deed of dower executed by the deceased in her favour. The Courts in India found these issues in favour of the widow, and dismissed the suit. The Judicial Committee in affirming the Courts' decrees upon these points, held, further, that although the estate of the husband was hypothecated for the dower, yet, as the heir-at-law would be entitled to the residue after satisfying the widow's claim, he was by right entitled to an account, but, as the plaint was so framed as not to admit of an account being taken, the appeal was affirmed, without prejudice to a suit being brought for administration of the deceased's estate, upon the footing of the marriage and deed of dower by the deceased being admitted in the suit.

NISSA

v.

NISSA.

luh lived at Azeemabad, a distance of 800 miles from 1855. Roostoomnugur. In the house of Seyud Moostefah, AMEER-OONand residing with him at the time of his decease, were the Respondent, Moorad-oon-Nissa, who had MORAD-OONformerly been a dancing girl, and kept in the house of the deceased at a monthly salary, and who claimed to be the widow of the deceased; and two other of the Respondents, Gholam Abbus and Soollan Ali, who had been brought up by the deceased's first wife, Ruzeeuh Begum, and who were, as they contended, his grandchildren, and had, moreover, been adopted by him in his lifetime. These persons possessed themselves of the whole of the estate, property, and effects of Seyud Moostefah, at Moradabad, and their title was recognised in the absence of, and without notice. being given to, Seyud Abdoolah, by the Government authorities; Segud Abdoollah being engaged in the District of Azeemabad, where he resided, and where some of the deceased's estates were situated, in establishing his title as sole heir-at-law to the deceased.

It appeared that soon after the death of Seyud Moostefuh, a quarrel took place between the Respondents, Moorad-oon-Nissa, Gholam Abbas, and Sooltan Ali. In consequence, the two latter Respondents presented a petition to the revenue department of Government, praying that their names might be recorded in the Collector's Office (Moorad-oonNissa's name never having been so recorded) in place of the name of Seyud Moostefah, deceased, as owners of the lands aforesaid which had belonged to him, and whom they therein alleged to be their grandfather. Moorad-oon-Nissa presented a counter-petition, disputing their claim as heirs. By a proceeding of the Court of Commissioners, the parties were referred

1855.

V.

NISSA.

to a Civil Court to establish their respective titles. AMEER-OON- Other proceedings took place before the Magistrates, NISSA in the District, when Gholam Abbas denied that MOORAD-OON Moorad-oon-Nissa was the wedded wife of the deceased, and alleged that she only cohabited with him. Ultimately a deed of compromise, dated the 7th of April, 1842, was entered into by Gholam Abbas and Sooltan Ali of the one part, and Moorud-oonNissa on the other, by which they agreed to divide the deceased's estate and property in equal moieties, Gholam Abbas and Sooltan Ali agreeing to take onehalf and Moorad-oon-Nissa the other half.

The Respondents, Moorad-oon-Nissa, Gholam Abbas, and Sooltan Ali, while in possession, sold and mortgaged considerable portions of the real estate, and applied the produce to their own use.

On the 21st of August, 1843, Seyud Abdoollah filed his plaint in the Zillah Court of the Principal Sudder Ameen of Moradabad against Moorad-oonNissa, Gholam Abbas, and Sooltan Ali, and Kumpa Domnee and Gholam Basit as accessories, and Chowbay Bindrabun, Kunheya Lal, Ghaseeram, Bhojraj, Kheoraj, Nundram and Bence Sing, mortgagees and purchasers of different portions of the immoveable estate of Seyud Moostefah, deceased, and Nagur Mull, a party in possession of a house. By this plaint, Segud Abdoollah, claiming as the full brother and heir-at-law of Seyud Moostefah, sought to obtain possession of the Zemindaries, estates, tenements, gardens, and lands, of the late Seyud Moostefah, in the District of Moradabad, with the mesne profits and interest, amounting to Rs. 72,290. 5. 7.; but did not include the estates in Azeemabad, which he had recovered, and he charged that the Respondents, Moorad

had 1855.

NISSA

v.

NISSA.

oon-Nissa, Gholam Abbas, and Sooltan Ali, taken possession of the whole of the moveable estate AMEER-OONand effects of the deceased, amounting in value to a very large sum of money, and also the whole of his MooRAD-00immoveable estate and property, and that the Respondent, Moorad-oon-Nissa, was not the wife of Seyud Moostefuh, deceased, and he charged collusion between her and Gholam Abbas and the Canoongos, in getting their names entered as proprietors, and submitted, that even if she had been the wife of Seyud Moostefah, still the name of Plaintiff ought to have been mentioned as an heir, because he was the full brother of the deceased, and under the Mahomedan law, though there be a widow, the brother is heir likewise; he also charged that Gholam Abbas and Sooltan Ali were not the grandsons of the deceased.

Moorad-oon-Nissa by her answer, for the first time alleged that she held a deed of dower, dated the 26th of July, 1818, executed in her favour by the deceased, Seyud Moostefah, on a stamp paper of Rs. 50, stipulating a dower of Rs. 46,000; and the answer averred that this deed of dower had been brought into operation; that it was a rule which the Shiah sect observed, that if an endowed widow be seised of the estate of her husband a residuary claim (usbeeut) could not be entertained; that it was also a maxim that, as the dower gave the wife a lien on the property, if she be seised of that property, a residuary claim could not be entertained by a Court of justice. The answer also submitted that the disputed property constituted the estate of the deceased, and that the Plaintiff as the heir would have been entitled to take the same had she not a claim for her dower, which, under the Mahomedan

1835.

NISSA

V.

NISSA.

law, took the precedence of, and was a bar to, her AMEER-OON- right of inheritance as wife of Seyud Moostefuh; which dower she contended gave her a lien on the disputed MOORAD-OON- property for the amount and the answer admitted that mortgages and sales of portions of the real estate of the late Seyud Moostefah had been made by her to the Respondents, Chowbay Bindrabun and Kunheya Lal, but alleged that they were made either to discharge debts contracted by Seyud Moostefah in bis lifetime, or to discharge obligations created since his death.

The joint answer of the Respondents, Gholam Abbas and Sooltan Ali, set up that they were brought up by the former wife of Seyud Moostefah, who, they alleged, had made a deed of gift in their favour; and they further alleged that when Seyed Moostefuh died, he left Moorud-oon-Nissa, and Gholam Abbas as the grandson in possession of his property; that from the death of Seyud Mooslefuh, Moorad-om-Nissa was the proprietor and occupant of the estates of her husband by virtue of her dower, while Gholam Abbus continued to manage them.

The other Defendants put in their answers, which raised no point material to the principal questions at issue. The Plaintiff in his replication again denied the fact of the marriage and the validity of the deed of dower.

The pleadings having been closed, the Court thought that the only questions to be proved, were the marriage of the principal Defendant, Moorad-oon-Nissa, and the deed of dower alleged by her for the first time in her answer, and ordered the deed to be produced and witnesses to be examined.

Moorad-oon-Nissa put in evidence the deed of dower