1. This appeal is by the plaintiff.
2. The plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession with a prayer for permanent injunction or in the alternative recovery of khas possession. Her case, in short, is that the suit land originally belonged to one Md. Rafi who died leaving two sons, Hashmat A.I and Kamar A.I.
3. Kamar A.I died leaving his son Wazuddin. On 1-12-1919 Hashmat A.I and Wazuddin got the properties partitioned by a deed. Hashmat A.I then sold his 8 annas share in the first schedule land to Sadaque A.I and his wife Rahimunnessa. Wazuddin created a benamf document in favour of his wife Manjura Khatun for the remaining 8 annas share of the first schedule land. Manjura died without any issue. Wazuddin after the death of Manjura married the plaintiff and a son Bhola was begotten by her. Bhola inherited the property of Wazuddin. Hashmat A.I died as a bachelor and Wazuddin as his nephew, then inherited his interest. Wazuddin then died leaving Bhola Mian and then Bhola died leaving the plaintiff as his sole heir. She was in possession of the schedule Ka land out of the first and the second schedule land. She used to possess the land through bargadars. The defendant who has no right, title and interest to the disputed land, in collusion with his father and one Abdul Gani Master has created a fraudulent deed of gift and tried to dispossess the plaintiff because of which there was a criminal case against the plaintiff's bargadar who was convicted.
4. Being encouraged, the defendant is threatening the plaintiff to dispossess.
5. The defendant filed a written statement and denied the allegations made in -the plaint and pleaded, inter alia, that Md. Rafi died leaving 4 sons, namely, Safar A.I alias Saear A.I. Abbas A.I, Hashmat A.I and Karam A.I, and also a daughter Jan Bibi. Karam A.I died leaving Wazuddin. Jan Bibi died leaving a son Nur A.I. Abbas A.I died leaving Hashmat A.I and Safar A.I as brothers, Hashmat A.I died leaving Safar A.I and Wazuddin as brother and nephew. Safar A.I had business in Burma and during his absence, Hashmat A.I and Wazuddin might have created the collusive partition deed in order to deceive Safar A.I and his son Razzaq A.I. The defendant's further case is that the second schedule land belonged to Alimullah. Sagar A.I and Hashmat A.I acquired the second schedule land and after their death Sagar A.I's son Razzaq being in possession, gifted the same together with other land to his son the defendant. The R. S. Record was wrong, that the kabala of Manjura was not a benami document and that Bhola Mia was the son of Manjura who predeceased his father Wazuddin and that the plaintiff was divorced by Wazuddin who took another husband, Nur A.I son of Jan Bibi was the former husband of Manjura. Khatun. Abdul Nabi and Abdul Manaf were the sons of Nur A.I by Manjura Khatun. The kabala land was inherited by her two sons Abdul Manaf and Abdul Nabi from Abdul Nabi, Abdul Majid purchased his interest and Abdul Manaf was still alive and was living in Burma. They are necessary parties and so they raised the question of misjoinder of parties.
6. The plaintiff produced six witnesses and defendant produced five witnesses. Both the parties also filed certain documents. The trial Court, on a consideration of evidence on record, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.
7. Against that there was an appeal by the defendant and the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. Against the said decision the plaintiff-appellant has filed the present appeal.
8. It may be stated that the trial Court has come to the following finding:- "From all these facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record I am unerringly of opinion that Razzaque A.I is not the son of Shagar A.I and that Hashmat A.I and Karam A.I inherited the property of Md. Rafi and that Jan Bibi, Sagar A.I and Abbas A.I predeceased their father and that plaintiff got the S. L. By inheritance as alleged in the plaint. It was not specifically stated in the plaint that Md. Rafi also left Jan Bibi, Sagar A.I and Abbas A.I for this omission the plaint case does not suffer in any way. It is further held that Exh. B is collusive and fraudulent document." .
9. It may be stated that Exh. B is the deed of gift that has been created in favour of the defendant.
10. The First Appellate Court has also come to a finding as follows:- ". . . I also agree with him on this point that the defendant totally failed to prove his possession in the same. We do not know for what reason, very recently in the year 1955 all of a sudden the D. W. 4 created a deed of gift Exh. B, in favour of his son the defendant and from there the dispute arose. I also agree with the findings of the learned Munsif that this is a document created for the purpose of claiming title in the disputed land and on the date of the document the D. W. 4 had no interest in the properties in question. It is true that the lands were not fallow for all the times after the death of Wazuddin. It was certainly in the care and possession of somebody. To judge as to who was in actual possession of the properties, if we consult the evidences of possession on the side of the plaintiff, that at once convince that the disputed lands were in possession of the plaintiff The First Appellate Court has further come to a finding as follows:- "In view of my foregoing discussion that the defendant totally failed to prove that Safar A.I, his grandfather was the son of Md. Rafi and that the son of Md. Rafi named Sagar A.I survived Hashmat A.I, I can at once say that there was none else save and except Wazuddin to succeed in the entire interest in the disputed properties."
11. From the above findings of the Courts below, it is clear that both the Courts have come to a concurrent finding that Wazuddin was the sole surviving heir of Md. Rafi and that defendant had failed to prove that Razaq A.I had inherited anything in the suit property and, as such he has no title. There is also the concurrent finding that the document Exh. B, the deed of gift in favour of the defendant is a fraudulent and collusive document. I do not find any reason to disturb this concurrent findings of fact.
12. The next point for discussion, therefore, is that whether Bhola Mian was the son begotten through the plaintiff or be--gotten through Manjura, the first wife of Wazuddin. On this point the trial Court has held that the plaintiff inherited through her son Bhola Mian. Accepting the evidence of the plaintiff, the First Appellate Court has reversed this finding not on the basis of the evidence on record but by first taking part of the evidence of the plaintiff and drawing a conclusion from there and then taking a part of the evidence of P. W. 6 and drawing a conclusion from there and, thereafter making these two conclusions on this basis he has drawn a third conclusion and has come to a finding that Bhola Mian was not the son of the plaintiff: I am afraid A that the second conclusion from his own conclusion cannot be drawn and it is both logically fallacious as well as not legally sustainable. On the other hand, we find that the plaintiff herself has categorically asserted that Bhola Mian was begotten by herself and she is corroborated by P. Ws. 2, 3 and 4. No doubt D. W. 3 has said that Bhola was the son of Manjura Khatun but unfortunately the Court of Appeal below has ignored this evidence on record and tried to base its conclusion on surmises and conjecture which is not sustainable in law. The admitted position, of course, is that the plaintiff was no doubt divorced by Wazuddin and that is why she is not claiming any property through Wazuddin. But the case of the plaintiff is that Wazuddin was survived by his son Bhola Mian. The only question is as to whether Bhola Mian was begotten either through the plaintiff or through Manjura Khatun and as I have already found, the finding of the First Appellate Court on this point B cannot be sustained because it has come to its conclusion ignored the evidence on record.
13. The First Appellate Court has also found that the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties, in view of the fact that there was kabala made with regard to some of the suit lands in favour of Manjura Khatun but the case of the plaintiff is that this kabala was a benami document. The First Appellate Court has not discussed the.Question of benami on the ground that two heirs of Manjura Khatun, namely Abdul Nabi and Abdul Manaf, have not been made parties to the suit. On this ground it has found that there is a defect of parties. It may be stated that if the document was itself a benami document, as alleged by the plaintiff and when there is no fight between the benamdar and the real owners, the heirs of the benamdars are proper and not necessary parties and on that ground the suit should not be dismissed. The First Appellate Court, however, categorically found, concurring with the finding of the trial Court, that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land. But it was wrong in totally dismis--sing the suit when it found that the defendant had neither any title nor possession. It has been rightly urged on behalf of the plaintiff that an injunction should have been granted. But some of these points, in my opinion, require to be properly gone into upon the evidence on record.
14. There will, however, be no order as to costs in this appeal.