Judgment S.C.Prasad, J. 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Patna. The plaintiff was one Musammat Bibi Saliman alias Salima, wife of Sheikh Athar Hussain deceased. She claimed dower to the extent of Rs. 40,000.00 and one gold mohar according to Sunni Hanafi School of Mohammadan Law alleging that her husband, Athar Hussain, had agreed to pay this amount as dower to her at the time of her marriage which had taken place in 1910. She was the second wife of Sheikh Athar Hussain, his first wife having died leaving behind a daughter and defendant No. 1 (respondent No. 1). 2. Defendants 3, 4 and 5 are widow and daughters of Ghazaffar Hussain, brother of Athar Hussain. Defendant No. 6 is the husband of defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 is his son. The plaintiff alleged that after the death of her husband she demanded her dower but defendants 1 to 7 and 13 refused to pay the amount. It was disclosed that almost the entire properties of Sheikh Athar Hussain bad been transferred by him by several deeds. She challenged the different transfers alleged to have been made by Athar Hussain as having been brought about fraudulently by the defendants taking advantage of his mental weakness caused by the serious illness of Athar Hussain preceding his death. She thereafter filed the suit claiming Rs. 26000.00 as dower remitting Rs. 14000. She also prayed that a decree for administration of the estate of Athar Hussain be passed and after realisation of her dower and costs of the suit and interest, if there be any residue, the plaintiff should be awarded her share therein. There was a further prayer that the deeds of Hiba-bil-evaz and Baibamafi-zarsaman alleged to have been executed by Athar Hussain should be declared to have transferred no title, in respect of the properties mentioned therein, to any of the defendants. There was subsequently an amendment of the plaint and by this amendment the plaintiff sought the aforesaid declaration also in respect of one sale deed dated the 19th August, 1948 alleged to have been executed by Athar Hussain in favour of Abdul Quaiyum, brother of defendant No. 1s husband. 3. There was subsequently an amendment of the plaint and by this amendment the plaintiff sought the aforesaid declaration also in respect of one sale deed dated the 19th August, 1948 alleged to have been executed by Athar Hussain in favour of Abdul Quaiyum, brother of defendant No. 1s husband. 3. AS many, as six written statements were filed by different sets of the defendants, but the defence was almost similar and the only point which has been pressed before us was that the dower of the plaintiff had been fixed at Rs. 500/-and not Rs. 40,000.00 and a gold mohar and that this amount of Rs. 500.00 had also been paid off by Athar Hussain: that Athar Hussain had died leaving behind cash and ornaments and other valuable movables of the total approximate value of Rs. 15000.00 which had come in the possession of the plaintiff who should be asked to surrender them before any decree for administration of the estate could be passed in her favour. 4. Defendants 14 and 15, who were subsequent transferees from some of the defendants, pleaded that they were bona fide purchasers for value without notice of the plaintiffs claim and, therefore, they were not bound by any decree to be passed in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants also challenged the allegations of the plaintiff in respect of the different deeds of transfer executed by Athar Hussain pleading that they were genuine transactions. 5. The learned Subordinate Judge found that the plaintiff was in possession of the cash amount of Rs. 14000.00 left by Athar Hussain but the ornaments belonged to her. He further found that the suit could proceed without placing the cash at the disposal of the court, but the decree, if passed in her favour, would contain a direction of the taking of account placing the entire assets left by Athar Hussain at the disposal of the court. 6. On the main point of contest regarding the dower, the learned Subordinate Judge found that the dower of the plaintiff had been fixed at Rs. 500.00 and that it had been paid off. As regards the different transfers by sale and gift made by Athar Hussain, the learned Subordinate Judge found that all these transactions were genuine, except the sale in favour of defendant No. 15. 500.00 and that it had been paid off. As regards the different transfers by sale and gift made by Athar Hussain, the learned Subordinate Judge found that all these transactions were genuine, except the sale in favour of defendant No. 15. He also found that the settlement in respect of 4 bighas of Kasht lands as detailed in the schedule of the written statement of defendant No. 6 by Athar Hussain with him at an annual rental of Rs. 4/- per bigha, was a genuine settlement. 7. Three schedules were attached to the plaint. The third schedule contained a description of those lands, which were alleged to have been settled with Quddus, Then, it was said that there were certain lands in this schedule, which were raiyati lands, but were purchased by Athar Hussain after he had become the proprietor of those tauzis, and it was contended by the defendants that these lands must be held to have passed to the transferees of the proprietary interest of Athar Hussain by the different deeds. The plaintiff denied this, and also contended that some of the lands were held by Athar Hussain as raiyat subsequent to which he had acquired proprietary interests in those tauzis, The learned Subordinate Judge held that if these allegations were correct, then the former class of land would be excluded but the latter must be taken as part of Athar Hussain properties, but having found that the plaintiffs claim of dower was not entertainable, he dismissed the suit. 8. The plaintiff had originally filed the appeal, but subsequently she died and in her place her heirs were substituted. 9. Sir Sultan Ahmad, learned Counsel for the appellant, contended that the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge on the question of dower and payment thereof was erroneous, that the learned Subordinate Judge should not have held the settlement of 4 bighas of land with Quddus was genuine, and that the raiyati lands purchased by Athar Hussain should not be deemed to have passed, to the transferees by virtue of the transfers of the proprietary interests only in those tauzi by Athar Hussain in their favour. The finding of the learned Subordinate Judge on the point of the genuineness of the other transfers was not challenged before us. 10. The finding of the learned Subordinate Judge on the point of the genuineness of the other transfers was not challenged before us. 10. I think, on a careful consideration of the evidence, that the findings of the learned Subordinate Judge on the question of the amount of dower and payment thereof are not correct. 11. The amount of dower is ordinarily fixed by oral contract, and this is valid. There is also no limit either to the maximum or minimum of the amount of dower, although the early Hanafi lawyers had fixed ten dirhems as the minimum for it and the Malikis considered even a smaller sum as permissible. These minima have now become obsolete and the amount of dower depends entirely Upon other considerations such as the circumstances of the husband and the wife, the necessity of a device to prevent on the part of the husband the arbitrary exercise of the power of divorce vested in him, the position of the paternal family of the woman, her intellectual attainments or personal attractions and qualifications, wealth of her husband, conditions of society surrounding her and the desire of self-glorification and vanity on the part of the parties. All these considerations enter into the determination and settlement of the amount of dower. Mr. Ameer Ali in his Mahommedan Law, Vol. II, 5th Edition, page 434, has observed as follows:- - In India, for example, among the upper middle class, the amount of dower ranges from 4,000 rupees to 40,000 rupees. In Behar, the latter is, generally speaking, the customary dower; in Lower Bengal, there is no custom. Among the lower classes, the mahr varies from 50 rupees to 400 rupees. In princely families, the dower consists of several lakhs." Indeed the excesses in dower amount had become so oppressive and unjust to the children of a Mohammadan by a predeceassed wife that in 1876 an Act, called Oudh Laws Act, was made, whereby Under sec. 5 thereof the Civil Court was given power to fix a reasonable amount of dower where the amount of dower stipulated in any contract of marriage by a Mohammadan was excessive with reference to the means of the husband. 5 thereof the Civil Court was given power to fix a reasonable amount of dower where the amount of dower stipulated in any contract of marriage by a Mohammadan was excessive with reference to the means of the husband. In such a contingency the entire sum provided in the contract was not to be awarded in any suit by decree in favour of the plaintiff, or by allowing it by way of set-off, lien or otherwise to the defendant. The amount of dower to be allowed by the court, was to be reasonable with reference to the means of the husband and the status of the wile. In the case of Nujumoodeen Ahmed V/s. Beebee Hooseinee reported in 4 Suth WR 110, there are observations to the effect that Mohammadan dower being the consideration paid by the bridegroom for, the marriage, should be taken to be regulated by the position and conduct of the bride especially because the Mohammadans often contract most unequal marriages. It is also recognised that when there is no written contract and a dispute arises at any time regarding the amount of dower, the mahr-ul-misl (dower of the equals) ought to be taken as the standard by which the respective allegations of the parties are to be rested (see Mr. Ameer Alis Mahommedan Law, 5th Edition pages 464-465). 12. The same position emerges from the cases cited by the counsel for the appellant. In the case of Ekram Hussain V/s. Ali Hussain reported in 17 Pat L.T. 423, it was held by this Court that the customary dower in Bihar among Mohammadans of good class is forty thousand rupees. It appears further that in that case also one of the parties contended that the dower fixed was only Rs. 500/-but the above noted statement of Mr. Ameer Ali was referred to and also the fact that the dower of the first wife of the defendant in that suit had been fixed at Rs. 40,000.00 and that was considered a very important circumstance in favour of the plaintiff, the second wife of the defendant, to prove her claim that her dower had also been settled at Rs. 40,000/-. 13. 40,000.00 and that was considered a very important circumstance in favour of the plaintiff, the second wife of the defendant, to prove her claim that her dower had also been settled at Rs. 40,000/-. 13. In the case of Kulsambi V/s. Bilankhan, reported in AIR 1929 Nag 121, it was observed that it was not uncommon for the dower of a Mohammadan wife to be fixed at a figure, which was out of all proportion to the husbands means. In that case the with claimed that her dower had been fixed at Rs. 50,000.00 100 ashrafis and 50 dinars. This was accepted on the basis of the evidence of three witnesses who were examined in proof of this fact. There was no documentary evidence. 14. In the case of Zakeri Begum V/s. Sakina Begum, reported in ILR 19 Cal 689 the Privy Council had also recognised the fact that dower was often high among Mohammadans, to prevent the husband divorcing his wife, in which case he would have to pay the amount stipulated. 14a. After having perused the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, I am of opinion that he has not adapted the correct approach to the nature of the matter in dispute before him in this case. (His Lordship then discussed the evidence (Paras 15-16) and found that the families of Athar Hussain and the plaintiff Musammat Bibi Saliman belonged to the highest (siddique) class of Sheikhs in Bihar and from the financial point of view also, of good class, and that the plaintiff possessed all the qualifications of a good wife and mistress of the house. Considering also the fact that the plaintiff at the age 17 or 18 was married to Athar Hussain after the death of his first wife, leaving a child, it was held that the dower was fixed at Rs. 40,000 and one gold mohar for the plaintiff by Athar Hussain. His Lordship then discussed the evidence (Paras 17-19) on other findings (not material for the report) of the Subordinate Judge and held that they were not correct.) 20. The result, therefore, is that the appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge are set aside and the suit is decreed in part. But in the circumstances of this case, parties will bear their own costs throughout. B.N.Rai, J. 21 I agree.