Law:

Section:

(a) Possession-Possession, proof of-Oral evidence adduced, discrepant and contradictory-Lower Court, held, justified in not accepting such evidence as proof of possession. (b) Court-fee-Trial Court, after concluding hearing and delivering judgment, finding plaintiff to have paid deficit court fee, and on direction of Court plaintiff paying same-Plaintiff, not moving higher Court against such order-Order to pay deficit court fee cannot, in circumstances, be agitated at appellate stage. Dates of hearing : 20th, 21st, 25th, 26th and 31st March, 1st and 15th April 1969.   JUDGMENT MAHMUD HUSAIN, J.-This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge in a suit for partition. Plaintiffs filed the suit on 3rd September 1955, alleging that the suit property originally belonged to raiyati of Bande Ali Khan, son of late Hasan Ali Khan. Bande Ali Khan acquired that property on the basis of a patta dated 28-3-85 A. D. from the landlord Debaddin Hazari and that the name of Bande Ali was recorded in the C. S. Khatian. There after Bande Ali died leaving behind his widow Badiunnessa, brother Fate Ali Khan and accordingly they inherited the shares being 4 annas and 12 annas respectively. While they were in possession Fate Ali died before C. S. operation leaving Majarullah his son as the only heir and that Majarullah thereafter died before the R. S. operation and it has been asserted in the plaint that the property inherited from Bande Ali remained in ejmali possession without any formal partition and Fate Ali and after him Majarullah remained in ejmali possession. That the said Majarullah was survived by two sons, defendant No. 2 Md. Ibrahim and plaintiff No. 1 Abdul Munaf alias Muharam Ali and a daughter plaintiff No. 2 Bhelua Sundari and a widow plaintiff No. 3 Fatema Khatun. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 were minors at the time of their father's death and all the heirs of Majarullah were under the care and management of Badiunnessa. It is alleged that taking advantage of the minority of the plaintiffs 1 and 2, the Offcers and the party men under Badiunnessa either collusively or through mistake got the name of Badiunnessa alone…