JUDGMENT Batterjee, Ag. C.J. 1. This and the connected appeal No. 178 of 1921 arise out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff respondent for possession of immoveable as well as moveable properties of various descriptions. The bulk of this property is alleged to have belonged to one Abid Husain, who died in the year 1909. He left surviving him his widow, Musst. Amrit Bibi, the first defendant, a grand-daughter Musst. Umme Habiba (the daughter of a deceased daughter) and three grandsons of one of his sisters. These grand-sons are the defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4. 2. Abid Husain is said to have made a will in the year 1907 when he was going to Kanbala. Musst. Umme Habiba died in 1919. The plaintiff is her husband and he claims a share in the property which according to him passed to Umme Habiba. If, Abid Husain did not make a will 14 annas of his property would go under the Shia law, to which sect he belonged, to Musst. Umme Habiba and 2 annas to Musst. Amrit Bibi. Accordingly it is stated that Musst. Umme Habiba inherited 14 annas of the property, and the plaintiff as her husband is entitled to half of the aforesaid 14 annas, that is, to 7 annas out of 16 annas. The plaintiff denies the alleged will, and he also claims a declaration that the will was never made, and that if it was made it was invalid and could not have any operation under the Muhammedan Law. 3. The property claimed was of five descriptions. There was some zamindari property which is specified in schedule A annexed to the plaint. There was some house property mentioned in Schedule B. Schedule specifies certain deposits in the Allahabad Bank and also in the Post Office Savings Bank. In Schedule D is specified certain jewellery and other moveable property which is alleged to have belonged to Umme Habiba. And Schedule E is property which the plaintiff alleges belonged to him, being cricket gear and articles of a similar nature. Out of the property mentioned in schedule D the plaintiff claims an 8 annas share. 4. The Court below has dismissed the claim in regard to the property mentioned in Schedules D and E, and has granted the plaintiff a decree for the share claimed by him out of other properties. 5. Out of the property mentioned in schedule D the plaintiff claims an 8 annas share. 4. The Court below has dismissed the claim in regard to the property mentioned in Schedules D and E, and has granted the plaintiff a decree for the share claimed by him out of other properties. 5. Appeal No. 50 of 1921 has been preferred by Musst. Amrit Bibi; and the connected appeal No. 178 of 1921 has been preferred by defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4. The plaintiff has filed cross-objections in respect of the portion of the claim which has been dismissed by the Court below. 6. We shall deal now with each description of property claimed by the plaintiff. First of all as to the zamindari property Musst. Amrit Bibi's defence was that her dower amounted to Rs. 51,000 and that she was in possession: of the property in lieu of her dower. The Court below has found that the dower of the lady did not exceed Rs. 5,000 and that this Rs. 5,000 as (sic)dy been realised by her out of the usufruct of the property, which she has been enjoying since the death of her husband. The evidence as to the amount of the dower being in excess of Rs. 5,000 is very meagre. After the death of her husband an application was made by slier for probate of the will of her husband, to which we have referred above. With the application for probate she filed an inventory and an affidavit, and in the affidavit she stated the amount of her dower to be Rs. 5000/-. No doubt she denies in the present suit that she had any knowledge of the contents of the affidavit or of the application. But it has been clearly proved that she did put her thumb impression to the affidavit, and that she swore it before an Honorary Magistrate, and was identified by a Mukhtar who has given evidence in the case. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of this Mukhtar and the Court below has believed him. It is clear that the lady admitted her dower to be Rs. 5000/,' and that being so, the usufruct of the property was more than sufficient to wipe off the amount of her dower. 7. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of this Mukhtar and the Court below has believed him. It is clear that the lady admitted her dower to be Rs. 5000/,' and that being so, the usufruct of the property was more than sufficient to wipe off the amount of her dower. 7. Her contention in regard to the house mentioned in list B is that it is her own property, and that the house which belonged to Abid Husain was appropriated by the East Indian Railway when the Railway line was first constructed. There is no evidence to show that the house of Abid Husain was appropriated by the Railway. On the contrary in the schedule of property, to which we have referred, she stated that the house belonged to Abid Husain. Further more there is the evidence of her own witnesses that the house was reconstructed by Abid Husain. So that there can be no doubt that the house did belong to Abid Husain and not to the defendant Amrit Bibi. 8. As regards the property mentioned in schedule C, that property consists of a deposit of Rs. 7000/- and odd in the Allahabad Bank, and of a further deposit of Rs. 1100/- in the Post Office Savings Bank. As regards the amount deposited in the Allahabad Bank, it has been clearly proved that; Musst. Amrit Bibi went to the Bank, in an ekka, affixed her thumb impression to the receipt granted to the Bank for the amount payable under the deposit receipts, one of which originally stood in the name of Abid Husain alone and the other jointly in her name and in the name of Abid Husain, and she directed the Bank clerks to make over the amount to the plaintiff who accompanied her to the Bank and identified her before the Bank Officials. The Bank officials proved that the money was actually handed over to the plaintiff. It is however stated on behalf of Musst. Amrit Bibi that the plaintiff himself appropriated the Rs. 7000/- and odd realised from the Bank and never paid it over to her. Against the statement of Musst. Amrit Bibi is the statement of the plaintiff himself in which he swears that he handed over the notes received from the Bank to Amrit Bibi and that she locked them up in her iron safe subsequently. 7000/- and odd realised from the Bank and never paid it over to her. Against the statement of Musst. Amrit Bibi is the statement of the plaintiff himself in which he swears that he handed over the notes received from the Bank to Amrit Bibi and that she locked them up in her iron safe subsequently. It is most unlikely that the plaintiff was allowed to take away this large sum of Rs. 7000/- especially as at the time when the money was withdrawn the plaintiff was only a student in the College, and was quite a young man. On the other hand it is more probable that the lady herself kept the money in her iron safe. It is true there is no evidence to show what was the necessity for withdrawing the money from the Bank but the fact remains that the money was withdrawn and handed over by the Bank Officials to the plaintiff and afterwards remained in the custody of Amrit Bibi. This is further shown by the fact that one of the currency notes for Rs. 500/-received from the Bank, was lent by her to one Mital Prasad upon a promissory note. Mital Prasad has given evidence, and in his account book is mentioned the number of the note which he had received. The promissory note was in favour of Musst. Amrit Bibi and Mital Prasad has, sworn that he got the money, namely the currency note for Rs;. 500/- from Musst. Amrit Bibi's karinda. He has repaid the money, and he is in possession of the promissory note. It is suggested that the plaintiff returned the promissory note to him, and he has obtained a discharge in order that he might give evidence in favour of the plaintiff to the prejudice of the defendants. There is no valid reason for accepting this suggestion. The promissory not has been partially torn up and handed over to him. He deposed that he had in all probability made an entry of the repayment in his account book. That account book of course was not produced but we have the sworn statement and we have the other circumstance to which we have referred. The Court below has preferred to believe the statement of the plaintiff in this respect and we see no reason to come to a different conclusion. 9. That account book of course was not produced but we have the sworn statement and we have the other circumstance to which we have referred. The Court below has preferred to believe the statement of the plaintiff in this respect and we see no reason to come to a different conclusion. 9. As regards the amount of one of the fixed deposit receipts which stood in the name of Abid Hussin and his wife Musst. Amrit Bibi, it was urged that half of that amount must be deemed to have belonged to Musst. Amrit Bibi herself. There is nothing to justify this contention: on the contrary in the written statement she admitted that the moneys mentioned in list C belonged to Abid Husain. 10. As for the Rs. 1,100 in deposit in the Post Office Savings Bank, it was said in the plaint that Amrit Bibi had withdrawn that amount. There is no evidence that she did so but the fact that the money was in deposit was admitted by her in her written statement, and if it is still in the bank and has not been realised by her, she will be entitled to withdraw the whole of it from the Savings Bank, and the passing of a decree against her for recovery of the plaintiff's share of the amount of that deposit will in no respect prejudice her in this suit. We therefore see no reason to disturb the decree of the Court below as regards the deposit of 1100 in the Post Office Savings Bank. 11. Mr. Iqbal Ahmad on behalf of Musst. Amrit Bibi raised a contention that the claim in regard to the deposits must be held to be time barred inasmuch as the money was with Prawn in 1915, and Musst. Umme Habiba was alive till 1919 and never claimed it. In the first place this contention was never put forward in the Court below. In the next place it is manifest from the evidence that the two ladies Amrit Bibi and Umme Habiba lived jointly and on most amicable terms. The possession of the money by Amrit Bibi was equivalent to possession by Musst. Umme Habiba. There was no conflict of interest between them and there was no occasion for her to demand this money from Musst. Amrit Bibi. In fact Musst. The possession of the money by Amrit Bibi was equivalent to possession by Musst. Umme Habiba. There was no conflict of interest between them and there was no occasion for her to demand this money from Musst. Amrit Bibi. In fact Musst. Umme Habiba had never been excluded from the ownership of this money and in her life-time her right had never been denied by Amrit Bibi. As regards this part of the claim therefore the appeal has in our opinion no force. 12. As regards the cross objections filed on behalf of the plaintiffs, the evidence is not satisfaction., and it has not been shown to our satisfaction that the finding of the Court below is erroneous. 13. The result therefore is that the appeal No. 50 of 1921 as well as the cross-objections filed in that appeal must fail. 14. As regards appeal No. 178 of 1921, it relates to the question of the will alleged to have been made by Abid. Husain in 1907. The fact of the will is no longer denied and it must be taken for the purposes of this case that as a matter of fact the will was executed by Abid Husain. By that will he provided that Musst. Amrit Bibi should be in possession of the whole of the estate for her life time, and that after her death Musst. Umme Habiba would be the owner (malik) of the property; that after her, her male issue and failing male issue female issue would get the property, and failing these the defendants 2, 3 and 4, the grandsons of the sister of Abid Husain, would get it. Under the Shia law the will would be, valid to the extent of one-third even without the consent of the heirs; if it was a will of the entire property in favour of an heir it would not be valid unless the other heirs assented to it. The point was considered by this Court in the case of Fahmida Khartum v. Jafri Khanum [1908] 30 All. 153-5 A.L.J. 169- (1908) A.W.N. 55. In that case it was held that if a bequest was made of one-third only it would be valid; but if the bequest was of the entire property it would not be valid even as regards one-third unless it was assented to after the death of the testator by the other heirs. 153-5 A.L.J. 169- (1908) A.W.N. 55. In that case it was held that if a bequest was made of one-third only it would be valid; but if the bequest was of the entire property it would not be valid even as regards one-third unless it was assented to after the death of the testator by the other heirs. In the present case the bequest was clearly one of the entire property. It is true that a life estate was given to Musst. Amrit Bibi, but it was a life estate in the whole of the property. Whereas if no will had been made she would have only got a 2 annas share and the grand-daughter of the testator would have got 14 annas. The effect of the will was to deprive the grand daughter of the testator of the 14 annas share which she would have at once inherited and to postpone her right to the 14 annas to the death of Amrit Bibi. This was an exclusion of the granddaughter from a very considerable share of the property, and therefore the will in the present case must be deemed to be a will of the entire property to the exclusion of one of the heirs. Unless therefore Musst. Umme Habiba can be held to have assented to the will it would not be valid even as regards one-third. It is said that the assent to the will was given on her behalf by her father Jawad Husain. In the first place there is nothing to show that Jawad Husain ever assented to this will. It is true that as Mukhtar of Amrit Bibi he got the will registered and subsequently proceedings were taken for obtaining Probate of the will; but he does not seem to have acted in his capacity as guardian of the minor and in those proceedings to have given his assent to the will, either expressly or impliedly. Musst. Umme Habiba was herself a minor, about 10 or 12 years of age, at the time of the death of Abid Husain. She lived till she was about 22 years of age. But during this period she does not appear to have given her consent to the will, or to have in any other manner acquiesced in the will. Musst. Umme Habiba was herself a minor, about 10 or 12 years of age, at the time of the death of Abid Husain. She lived till she was about 22 years of age. But during this period she does not appear to have given her consent to the will, or to have in any other manner acquiesced in the will. There is nothing to show that she had any knowledge of the will or that she had ever seen it or heard of its contents. Two witnesses were no doubt examined who stated that the lady had said that she had no objection to her grand father's will. The lower Court has disbelieved these witnesses and we are not in a position to say that the conclusion of the Court below in that respect was erroneous. We think it very unlikely that Umme Habiba stated in the presence of these witnesses that she had no objection to the will and that she assented to it. 15. The appeal filed on behalf of the defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4, namely appeal No. 178 of 1921, also fails. 16. The result is that we dismiss both the appeals and the cross-objections with costs which in this Court will include fees on the higher scale.