KIDWAI, J. - (1.) THE following pedigree will help to elucidate the facts of the case : MT. ULFAT=SIRAJUDDIN Mt. Sajiram Mt. Mahumudan Qadeor Mt. Asiran Zahir Uddin Jamil (Deft. 2) O.S.P. =Abdul Rashid (Death 1942)=Zubeda Ali Mohammad 1931 (Pltt. 1) (Deft. 3) Mt. Fahmida (Pltf.2)
(2.) ZUBEDA and Fahmida, mentioned in the above pedigree, instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises against the appellants for the following reliefs : (1) A decree against all the defendants for the partition of a ten annas share in the property left by Zahiruddin which, the plaintiffs alleged, was the entire property entered in list A attached to the plaint and which was in the possession of Ulfat and Mohmudan though a small portion of it - - the goods in the tailors shop - - was in possession of All Mohammad. (2) A decree for dower amounting to Rs. 250/ - against defendants 1 and 2; and (3) A decree against defendant No. 1 for the recovery of the jewelry mentioned in list B attached to the plaint which was alleged to belong to the plaintiff No. 1 and was said to have been entrusted by her to defendant No. 1. All the defendants filed a joint written statement. They alleged: (1) That none of the property mentioned in list A was the property of Zahiruddin; (2) That plaintiff No. 1 remitted her dower and cannot now claim it; (3) That plaintiff No. 1 did not leave any jewelry with defendant No. 1; (4) That in fact plaintiff No. 1 had taken away some money and jewelry belonging to defendant No. 1; (5) That the suit is bad for misjoinder of causes of action; and (6) That Zahiruddin had purchased a house in the name of plaintiff No. 1 and that should also be included' in the suit. 3a. The trial court held : (1) That plaintiff No. 1 had not relinquished her dower; (2) That all the property in list A was property left by Zahiruddin; (3) That defendant No. 1 had taken possession of the ornaments belonging to plaintiff No. 1; (4) That the house standing in the name of plaintiff No. 1 does not form part of the assets of Zahiruddin.
(3.) IT appears from the Judgment of the trial court that the issue as to misjoinder was not pressed and the court held that there was no misjoinder. On the findings arrived at by the court the suit was decreed for all the reliefs claimed. It was further directed that, if defendant No. 1 failed to return the ornaments given in list B, she should pay the price of the ornaments at the current market rates of silver and gold.;