Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. Ex.DW-2/DA (certified copy of the registered Will of deceased dated 10th February, 1987).

8. Ex.PW-2/D2 (Photograph of the deceased).

9. Ex.DW-1/2/Mark A/Ex.DW-1/D1 (Nikahnama).

10.Ex.DW-1/9/Ex.PW-2/D1/Mark B (Invitation Card of marriage)

11.Ex.DW-1/10/Ex.PW-2/D1/Mark C (Copy of order passed by Urmila Rani, Sub-Judge dated 21st November, 1989).

12.Ex.DW-1/11/Ex.D-1/Mark D (Ration Card).

13.Mark E (Copy of the complaint recorded as DD No.16A dated 29th April, 1982)

7. DW-1 in his affidavit exhibited the documents i.e. Ex.DW-1/2 (Nikahnama), Ex.DW-1/9 (Invitation Card), Ex.DW-1/10 (Copy of the order passed by Urmila Rani, Sub-Judge on 21.11.1989), Ex.DW-1/11 (Ration Card) & Ex.DW-1/12 (Complaint recorded as DD No.16A dated 29th April, 1982) which were de-exhibited and were marked as Mark A to E respectively. The document i.e. DW-1/2 (Nikahnama) was re-exhibited as Ex.DW-1/D1 in cross-examination. It has been noticed from the orders passed by the Joint Registrar as well as pleadings of the parties that various documents have been exhibited twice. Some documents are exhibited before the Joint Registrar. It was pointed out to the learned counsel for the defendant Nos.1 to 3. However, the same was not clarified by him. He was also seeking time to file the written submissions, the same was also filed. Therefore, it took time to pronounce the judgment in the matter for awaiting about the clarification on documents and written-submissions. ISSUE NO.1:

The undertaking given by the plaintiffs‟ counsel is accepted. If situation arises, necessary orders in law for paying the ad-valorem Court Fee would be passed.

ISSUE NO.2:

9. The burden of proving the said issue has been put on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs No.1 and 2 who appeared as PW-2 and PW-3 in their testimony deposed that after the death of Mst.Zubaidan in 1981, the children of the deceased opposed his desire to contract a second marriage as he was not maintaining the good health. The deceased did not formally contract any such marriage and always represented to his relations that no Nikah was performed. The defendant No.1 was only retained and employed for household work and it might be possible that he developed a liaison with her. However, it is not denied by them that defendants No.2 & 3 are the children of late Mohd.Ahmed with defendant No.1. It is argued by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that as the defendant No.1 herself did not enter into the witness box to identify her Nikahnama which was sought to be proved by the attorney of the defendant No.1, the same has no evidence value in the eyes of law. Even original Nikahnama was not produced and the same has also not been proved in secondary evidence. The age mentioned in the affidavit of DW-1 and appearing in the Nikahnama is inconsistent. The dower mentioned in the Nikahnama of `10,000/- was to be paid at the time of Nikah. The execution of an Iqrarnama by the deceased subsequently in lieu of Mehar thereby gifting his properties to the defendant No.1 is contrary to the law. Thus, the plaintiffs have discharged their burden on issue No.2.

DW-1 deposed that defendant No.1 is his real sister, the defendants No.2 and 3 are his Bhanji and Bhanja. Mst. Nazma, defendant No.1 and the deceased were married on 20th January, 1982 in accordance with Muslim rites and custom at a dower of `10,000/-. He is the attorney of defendant No.1. He has also identified his signatures. The power of attorney is marked as Ex.DW-1/1. He deposed that the Nikahnama was executed as per Muslim Law and the customs and the same is exhibited as Ex.DW-1/D1 in his cross-examination. Certified copy of the will Ex.PW-2/DA and original Iqrarnama, Ex.DW-1/7 are perused wherein it is mentioned that late Mohd.Ahmed has married twice. Similarly, in the Iqrarnama Ex.DW-1/7, a specific statement has been made by the deceased that defendant No.1 is his second wife and he had to pay `10,000/- as Mehar to her. Burden to prove issue No.2 is upon the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs in their testimony have not challenged the signatures of the deceased. There were three witnesses to the marriage. Not a single witness was summoned by the plaintiffs to prove that the marriage was not solemnized or she is not wife of the deceased. It is also not proved by the plaintiffs that the copy of Nikahnama filed by the defendants is forged and fabricated, rather PW-2 and PW-3 who are the sons of the deceased in their statements have stated that they started living separately when their father brought defendant No.1, as earlier they were living together. In their testimonies, it was also stated that they opposed the marriage of their father with defendant No.1. In the cross-examination of DW-1, the copy of Nikahnama was exhibited as Ex.DW-1/D1. The defendant No.1 also produced copy of the ration card (Mark D) of the deceased in which the name of defendant No.1 is mentioned as his wife. DW-1 deposed that the Nikah was performed in his presence. He was not crossed on this aspect. Therefore, it is proved beyond any doubt that the defendant No.1 is the lawfully wedded wife of the deceased. As far as defendants No.2 and 3 are concerned, the plaintiffs have not denied the fact that they are born from the deceased and defendant No.1. The plaintiffs were not able to demolish the statement of DW-1 in his cross-examination who had also stated that the rishta of marriage came through one Sh.Badru.