Asgar & ORS v. Sher Mohd.@Sher Juung & ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:22.01.2016 Asgar and others ... Appellants Vs.

Sher Mohd.@ Sher Jang & others ... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL 1.

Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?

2.

To be referred to reporters or not?

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present:- Mr. Sailender Singh, Advocate for the appellants.

AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral) C.M.No.11614-C-2014 For the reasons stated in the application, duly supported by an affidavit, delay of 18 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. C.M. stands disposed of.

RSA No.4916 of 2014 The appellant-plaintiffs, who are collateral of Rasula, are aggrieved of the release deed having been executed by Smt. Mariyam @ Mariya widow of Rasula and in this regard filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction but both the Courts below concurrently non-suited.

Mr. Sailender Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-plaintiffs submits that as per the customary law, Muslim widow, during her life time, cannot part away with the property after demise of her husband. Previous to the filing of suit, she had transferred the property in favour of her daughter and same was challenged by the appellants. Thereafter, respondent-defendant No.1 adopted the son of her daughter -Chawli (defendant No.2) and executed a release deed and in this regard, a suit was filed. He, thus, prays that substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiffs and appraised the paper book.

The release deed Ex.P2 has been executed after adoption deed Ex.P3 within a gap of one year between the same. The collateral of deceased Rasula and defendant No.2 did not have a right qua suit property and the property has to be remain within family and therefore, it cannot be said to be against customary law as no third party right had been created. The Courts below also arrived at such finding while dismissing the suit and appeal. In view of the aforementioned observations, I do not intend to differ with the findings rendered by both the Courts below, which are based upon the appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, much less, no substantial question of law arises for determination of this Court.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE January 22, 2016 savita