2011 M L D 176
Dower being property of wife given to her by father-in-law through agreement executed by him a day before her marriage also finding mention in Column 16 of her Nikahnama---Refusal of father-in-law to execute registered document as per terms of such agreement---Suit by wife against her husband and father-in-law for specific performance of such agreement---Father-in-law alleged such agreement and Column to be forged and fabricated---Proof---Wife tendered in evidence Nikahnama and such agreement by examining marginal witnesses thereof---Validity---Record showed that marriage was an arranged one and in pursuance thereof, father-in-law had executed such agreement with his free will---Such agreement was comprehensive reflecting understanding reached between two families---According to agreement, husband had no property at all, thus, his father for having hand of plaintiff for his son transferred a portion of his house to her having value of Rs.50,000---According to agreement, in case of failure of father-in-law to transfer such property through registered document, plaintiff had a right to enforce same through a court of law---Father-in-law had admitted his signature on Nikahnama as witness---Wife by producing marginal witnesses had proved such agreement---Father-in-law could prove alleged interpolation in Nikahnama by producing its certified copy, but he had not done so knowing fully well that there was no such interpolation---Father-in-law during cross-examination had admitted that all blank columns of Nikahnama were crossed, while Column 16 thereof was filled and not crossed---Presence of wife at time of execution of such agreement was not necessary as same was not a commercial transaction settled between a buyer and seller---Marriage was an arranged one, and its terms and conditions would have been settled amongst elders of both families and not by bride and bridegroom, and womenfolk including bride were not allowed to participate in such meetings---Father-in-law could not prove his such plea---Oral evidence could not be preferred over unrebutted documentary evidence---Suit was decreed with direction to father-in-law to transfer such property to plaintiff within specified time, other-wise she would'be entitled to file execution petition for its recovery.
0 comments:
Post a Comment