9911796707
TMI Blog1926 (12) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o contested the suit. There were also other defendants among whom we need mention only Nazir Hussain. Under an order dated the 6th March 1918 Nazir Hussain was transposed from the array of the defendants and was made a plaintiff in the suit. Ahmad Hassan, in his written statement, traversed the pleas contained in the plaint and further pleaded that the plaintiff and her ancestors were not entitled to the income of the Dargah and that her suit was barred under the provisions of S. 11 of the Civil P.C. He also pleaded that income of the Dargah was waqf and therefore incapable of enjoyment in separate shares. There was the farther plea that the combined office of Sajjada Nashin and Mutwalli had all along devolved upon the eldest male descendan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ber 1920. This copy is not accompanied by any affidavit, and we cannot accept it at this stage, several years after the death of Mt. Amir Begum. We find, however, the name of Inayat Hussain, one of the legal representatives of Mt. Amir Begum, in the title of the present appeal, but, as stated above, we do not know when and under what circumstances the name of Inayat Hussain was brought on the record. Under these circumstances we hold that so far as Mt. Amir Begum was concerned the present appeal abates. The result is that the decree of the Court below in favour of Mt. Amir Begum in respect of 16/96ths share stands and has become final. 3. Now remains the question as to whether or not the present appeal abates against Nazir Hussain, plain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 719. It may be noted that this view is not opposed to the law as laid down in the cases of Abdul Rahman v. Shahab-ud-Din [1920] 1 Lah. 481= 55 I.C. 883 and Mallapragada v. Lingam Viraragava [1910] 20 M.L.J. 308= 5 I.C. 514= 7 M.L.T. 43. 4. In this view of the case we find that the fall and complete interest of Ahmad Hassan, deceased was not represented in appeal before the Court in that the name of Mt. Saida Begum, his daughter, is not included in the array of appellants. If she was unwilling to appear as a party appellant it was open to the two legal representatives, who appear as appellants, to implead her as a respondent. This has not been done. 5. The result is that one of the legal representatives not having been impleaded, and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
