Blanesburgh, J - (1.)The property which is the subject-matter of the suit out of which this appeal has arisen belonged to one Abdul Shah, who died on October 9, 1881, leaving him surviving his widow Zamani Begam and his cousin Mansur Shah. According to the Mahomedan law, one-fourth of the property of the deceased devolved upon his widow and three-fourths upon Mansur Shah, while the widow being so entitled took possession of the whole of the estate in lieu of her dower which, as she claimed) amounted to Rs. 50,000. Thereafter Mansur Shah, having assigned a one-half share out of his three-fourths interest to Usman Shah and Zamani Khan, joined with them in April, 1892, in filing a suit against the widow in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Farrukhabad, alleging that her dower amounted to no more than Es. 1,000, and that it had long ago been discharged from her usufruct of the estate, and claiming (1) that possession should be delivered to them unconditionally of a three-fourths share of the estate, and (2) that if any portion of Musammat Begam's dower was found to be due a decree should be passed in their favour for possession on payment of the dower due.
(2.)The suit went to judgment. The District Judge by his order dated April 17, 1893, decreed it against the widow. She died on June 7,1894, and thereafter an appeal against the decree was preferred to the High. Court at Allahabad by the present appellants who are her heirs and legal representatives. That Court allowed the appeal; it held that the dower was Rs. 50,000, and on June 2, 1896, it made the following decree, on which the whole question now at issue turns:- It is ordered and decreed that this appeal be allowed, and in modification of [the decree appealed from] it is ordered that the plaintiff-respondents do receive possession of the property specified in the said decree on payment by them to the defendants-appellants of the sum of Rs. 35,223 minus the amount of the profits arising from the plaintiff-respondents three-fourths share of the property in the possession of the defendants-appellants from the date of the lower Court's decree up to the date when possession may be obtained by the plaintiff- respondents.
(3.)With reference to that decree it is agreed that, in arriving at the figure of Rs. 35,223 as the sum which had to be paid if the widow's claim to dower was to be extinguished, no interest upon the dower in arrear was taken into account; in fact, in that suit no claim was put forward either by the widow herself or by the present appellants, as her successors in interest, that she was entitled to any such interest and the amount to be paid was assessed upon the footing that no such claim existed.