K.C.AGARWAL, J. - (1.) THIS is plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit for prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 4 from realis­ing Rs. 19,571.79 Paise being one-fifth share of compensation money from the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ghaziabad.
(2.) THE plaintiff's claim was that she was the widow of Talseem Ali, predeceased son of Allah Kazi, to whom the lands shown in Schedules A and B belonged. During his life time, the land mentioned in Schedule C, which was a part of Schedules A and B was acquired by the Improvement Trust, Ghaziabad. Allah Razi died two years prior to the filing of the suit. A dispute arose between the plaintiff on the one hand and defendants 1 to 4 on the other with regard to the amount of compensation which was awarded in respect of the land of Allah Razi. The plaintiff's case was that being the widow of predeceased son of Allah Razi, she was entitled to have one-fifth share. But since the defendants claimed that they were the exclusive owners of the compensation, the plaintiff had to bring the suit for injunction restrain­ing the defendants from lifting the share of the plaintiff. Defendants 1 to 4 filed one written statement. They denied that Allah Razi was the bhumidhar or Sirdar of the land acquired. Their claim was that Allah Razi had disposed of the land of his share during his life time and after his death the contesting defendants became entitled to hold the land. The defendants further asserted that the land, in fact, belonged to the Waqf Alalaulad created by Mohammad Ali and it was the land of Waqf which had been acquired by the Improvement Trust, Ghaziabad. Accordingly, they were entitled to take the entire amount. The defendants pleaded in the alternative, that under the Mohammedan Law since the plaintiff was not the heir and legal representative of Allah Razi, she was not entitled to any relief.
(3.) ON the pleadings, the trial Court framed several issues. All the issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff except Issue No. 1 which was to the effect whether the plaintiff had 1/5th share in the disputed property regarding which the compensation was given by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. As Issue No. 1 had been decided against the plaintiff, the suit was dismissed. The view of the trial Court was that as under the Mohammedan Law applicable for the purposes of taking money, the plaintiff was not the heir and legal representative, she was not entitled to any decree in the suit. In the appeal taken by the plaintiff, the aforesaid finding of the trial Court was affirmed. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff filed the present second appeal.;