Judgment M.P.Verma, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition, in which the plaintiffs claim nine annas five gandas one kauri and odd share in the lands described in schedules 1 and 2 of the plain. The suit was decreed in part, and hence the plaintiffs are the appellants, 2. The following genealogical table would indicate the relationship between the parties: Nawab Khan | ------------------------------------- | | 1st wife 2nd wife | (Safidunnissa alias Darban Ali Khan Bibi Taran) = Most. Ehadan | | ---------------------- --------------------------- | | | | Abdulah Khan Wahid Ali Khan Sadiquan Abdul Katim -Mt. Raquibulnissa | (daughter) -Most. Ayasha | | | | Aziz Khan -------------- | | | | | -------- Abuus Samad Abdul Ahad | | (D.1) (D.2) | ------------------ | | | | Md. Ayub Md. Idris | (P.1) (P. 2) | -------------------------------------- | | | Mt. Safiuaaissa Sadrunnissa Noorjahan (D.8) (D.3) (D.4) So far, there is no dispute concerning this genealogical table; but defendants 5 to 7 intervened in the suit and were added as intervenor defendants. According to them, Nawab Ali Khan had one daughter from his first wife and her name was Baratan. This Baraian had two sons, Asique and Shafique. Ashiques son is Halim (defendant No. 5), and Shafiques son is Mohammad Atim (defendant No. 6). The daughter of Shafique, Bibi Azimunnissa, is defendant No. 7, 3. According to the case of the plaintiffs, Nawab Ali Khan, the common ancestor, had milkiat interest in Tauzi No. 13134, 13136, 13138 and 6541 in village Morawara. He had 16 kathas 11 dhurs of bakasht lands as mentioned in schedule 2, as well as 29 Bighas 14 kathas 14 dhurs of kashi land, as mentioned in schedule 1, of the plaint. After the death of Nawab Ali, his three sons, Darban Ali Khan, Abdullah Khan and Wahid Ali Khan, and the two widows inherited his properties. Thereafter, the three sons separated in mess, but the lands were not partitioned by metes and bounds. They further alleged that Mosstt. Sadiqan, mother of defendants 1 and 2, died during the life time of her father, Darban Ali Khan, and so they could not inherit any share from their mother. Thereafter, the three sons separated in mess, but the lands were not partitioned by metes and bounds. They further alleged that Mosstt. Sadiqan, mother of defendants 1 and 2, died during the life time of her father, Darban Ali Khan, and so they could not inherit any share from their mother. Darban Ali Khan had also some private property, namely, 1 bigha 8 khathas 18 dhurs of land, which were inherited, after his death, by his son Abdul Karim, and his widow, Ebadan. Some time later, Abdul Karim died leaving his widow, Ayesha, his mother, Ebadan, and his step uncles, Abdullah Khan and Wahid Ali Khan. Defendants 1 and 2 fraudulently got a deed of gift executed by Mossammat Ebadan and Mossammat Ayesha in their favour. This deed of gift was inoperative and defendants 1 and 2 could claim no interest in any land through this deed of gift. After the death of Abdullah Khan, his share of lands devolved on his brother, Wahid Ali Khan, his mother, Taran, his widow, Raquibunnissa, and his daughters, who are defendants 3, 4 and 8. Thereafter, Mossammat Taran executed two deeds of gift, dated the 5th January, 1949, in favour of the plaintiffs concerning her malkiat property and the plaintiffs came in possession. She had also executed another deed of gift in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs further inherited properties from Aziz Khan, and the total share of the plaintiffs came to nine annas five gandas one kauri and odd. The bakasht lands described in schedule 2 of the plaint had now become kasht lands because of the vesting of the estate under the Bihar Land Reforms Act. Plaintiffs also stated that the heirs of Abdullah Khan brought Title Suit No. 94/15 of 1952/54 against defendants 1 and 2 as well as the plaintiffs on the basis of the deed of gift dated the 15th April, 1943, executed by Mossammat Ebadan and Mossammat Ayesha. This suit was decreed on the 10th April, 1954, and the decree was finally affirmed by the High Court also. As the plaintiffs felt inconvenience in cultivation of the lands, they brought the suit for partition of their share by metes and bounds. 4. The suit was contested by two" sets of defendants. The. first set Consisted of defendants 1 and 2, and the second set of the intervenor defendants 5 to 7. As the plaintiffs felt inconvenience in cultivation of the lands, they brought the suit for partition of their share by metes and bounds. 4. The suit was contested by two" sets of defendants. The. first set Consisted of defendants 1 and 2, and the second set of the intervenor defendants 5 to 7. According to defendants 1 and 2, the three sons of Nawab Ali partitioned the family lands about 50 years ago and so a fresh partition could not be allowed. They further alleged that Mossammat Sadiqan, daughter of Darban Ali, died after the death of. her father, and she also got a share in the properties of her father. They further alleged that Darban Ali had not only 1 bigha 18 kathas and odd land as his personal property, but, in all, he had 4 bighas as his khas land, as described in the schedule appended to the written statement. According to them, the deed of gift executed by Taran in favour of the plaintiffs was a fraudulent transaction and it remained inoperative. The deed of gift executed by Ebadan and Ayesha in favour of the defendants was a genuine transaction and the defendants got possession by virtue of the same. Even in Title Suit No. 94/1952, it was held that the deed of gift was valid to the extent of the share of the donors. 5. The main allegation raised on behalf of the defendants 5 to 7, the intervenor defendants, was that Nawab Ali got a daughter from his first wife and her name was Baratan, and she also inherited a share after the death of her father. They challenged the share of the plaintiffs, and also claimed that a separate patti should be carved out, if partition is allowed, in respect of their share. 6. Learned Additional Subordinate Judge framed several issues, and came to the conclusion that Baratan was a daughter of Nawab Ali and her heirs also got share in the inheritance. As regards the death of Sadiqan, he came to the conclusion that she had predeceased her father and so her heirs could not got any share in the inheritance. Only these two points have been pressed in this Court. 7. As regards the death of Sadiqan, he came to the conclusion that she had predeceased her father and so her heirs could not got any share in the inheritance. Only these two points have been pressed in this Court. 7. In a case of this nature, where the relationship of one person (sic)other is concerned, it is the quality of the oral evidence which has to be taken into consideration, besides, of course, any documentary evidence on the point. According to the plaintiffs witnesses, Nawab Khan had no daughter. This question was brought before the lower Court by the intervenor defendants 5 to 7, who alleged that Bibi Baratan was the daughter of Nawab Ali from his first wife. She died leaving behind two sons, Ashique and Shafique. Intervenor defendant No. 5 Halim is the son of Ashique: intervenor defendant No. 6 Mohammad Atim (minor) in the son and Bibi Azimunnissa {intervenor defendant No. 7) is the daughter of Shafique. Plaintiff No. 1 examined himself as P.W. 9. He simply stated that defendants 5 to 7 or their- ancestors never entered into possession of these lands. In his cross-examination, he stated that Nawab Khan had no daughter. But this information was based on hearsay evidence. It is surprising that he could not trace out of the parentage or where abouts of these intervenor defendants, because he stated that he enquired into matter, but it could not be known to him as to who they were. The other witnesses who came to deny this relationship on behalf of the plaintiffs are P. Ws 5, 6, 7 and 8. P.W. 5 Motiur Rahman, aged about 42 years, could not say whether Nawab Khan had any daughter from his first wife. P.W. 6 is Wahid Khan; who admitted that he had no relationship with Nawab Khan. He simply said that Nawab Khan had no daughter. So, he does not appear to be a competent witness, P.W. 7 Yar Mohammad Khan, aged about 50 years, stated that Nawab Khan had no daughter. He had not seen Nawab Khan, nor his first wife. He did not know even Sahabzad Khan. From his other statements, it is apparent that he is not in know of various . things of this family, P.W. 8 Tafazzul Mian also stated that Nawab Ali had no daughter. He had not seen Nawab Khan, nor his first wife. He did not know even Sahabzad Khan. From his other statements, it is apparent that he is not in know of various . things of this family, P.W. 8 Tafazzul Mian also stated that Nawab Ali had no daughter. His other statements would indicate that he is not in close touch with this family. As against this evidence given on behalf of the plaintiffs, we have got the evidence of some competent witnesses who have figured as D. Ws 3 to 7. D. W. 8 is, of course, defendant No. 5 and D. W. 9 is defendant No. 6. D. W. 8 stated on oath that Baratan was his grand-mother. Any way, the evidence of these two witnesses may be challenged as being statements of interested witnesses. D. W. 3 Leyaqat Khan stated that Sahebzad Khan was his cousin and he was married to Baratan, who was the daughter of Nawab Khan, He further stated that Ashique and Shafique were the sons of Baratan. So, he is a close relation of the family, and his evidence on this relationship should carry weight. D. W. 4 Abdul Hamid Khan, who is aged 65 years and is of the same village, pledged his oath to say that Baratan was the daughter of Nawab Khan from his first wife. He also appears to be a relation, because he stated that Baratan was the mother-in-law of his sister. His statements concerning the deaths of other members of the family have not been challenged. D. W. 5 Sayeedul Khan is the cousin of D. W. 4. He also stated that Baratan was the daughter of Nawab Khan. His evidence on this point does not appear to have been challenged in the cross-examination. D. W. 6 Fazle Khan is a nephew of Sa-hebzad Khan, the husband of Baratan, So, he also is a common relation, and his evidence cannot be discarded. D. W. 7 Mullah Khan is 60 years of age and of the same village. He were: Darban Ali Khan | | Wazid Ali Khan | sons | Abdullah Khan | | of Nawab Ali Khan Mosst. Bibi Baratan - daughter | Mosst. BUM Taran - widow | It is to be noted that this document is a public document, and so no formal proof is needed. He were: Darban Ali Khan | | Wazid Ali Khan | sons | Abdullah Khan | | of Nawab Ali Khan Mosst. Bibi Baratan - daughter | Mosst. BUM Taran - widow | It is to be noted that this document is a public document, and so no formal proof is needed. Secondly, it is relevant to the point at issue. Mr. Mazhar Hussain, appearing on behalf of the appellants, has argued that this document is inadmissible in evidence in the sense that the recital therein is based on the statement of such persons who have not been examined in the case, and it is not known on what information they had made that statement in the title suit. In my opinion, this argument cannot be allowed to prevail. There appears to be no reason as to why as far back as 1912 the landlords would make a false recital concerning a daughter of this family, that is, they mentioned a daughter knowingly when there was no daughter in fact. Moreover, the landlords must have special means of knowledge about the various tenants whom they were going to sue in the title suit. In stated that Nawab Khan had a daughter, Baratan, and, after her father death, she got possession of his lands. He also appears to be a competent witness on this point. 8. Apart from the evidence of these competent witnesses, who have been examined on behalf of the intervenor defendants, we have got a document of unimpeachable character, which also goes to support the case of the intervenor defendants. It is Ext. A-1, a decree passed in Title Appeal No. 135 of 1912. It appears that the landlords, Raghunath Bhagat and Baijnath Bhagat, concerning whom there is no dispute, had brought a title suit for fixation of rent in respect of some lands belonging to the family of Darban Ali Khan. The defendants-respondents in that appeal the case of Dolgobinda Paricha v. Nimai Charan Misra , it was obsen(sic) that, under Section 50 of the Evidence Act, when the Court has to form (sic) opinion as to the relationship of one person to another, the opinion expressed by conduct as to the existence of such relationship of any person, who has special means of knowledge on the subject of that relationship, is a relevant fact. But the person whose opinion expressed by conduct is relevant must be a person who, as a member of the family or otherwise, has special means of knowledge on the particular subject of relationship. If the person fulfils that condition, then what is relevant is his opinion expressed by conduct. What the section says is that the conduct or outward behaviour as evidence of the opinion held is relevant and may, therefore, be proved, of course, Section 50 does not make evidence of mere general reputation (without conduct) admissible as proof of relationship. So, in my opinion, Section 50, read with Section 60, of the Evidence Act would make this document admissible in evidence, and the Court can put reliance on the statement made therein. This decision has been followed by this Court in some cases, and I may refere to the case of Bhogal Paswan v. Mosst. Bibi Nabihan . There, the question was whether the plaintiff was the daughter of one S.M. Evidence was given by witnesses, who were co-villagers, some of them being castement and neighbours, having in some cases at least lived in the same village and in the same neighbourhood since the life of S.M. The witnesses testified that S.M. died leaving behind his widow and her daughter, the plaintiff; that the properties of S.M. devolved jointly on the widow and the plaintiff; that the widow was living jointly with the plaintiff and was in joint possession of the lands in suit and that, after the widows death, the plaintiff alone remained in possession. In such circumstances, it was held that the evidence given by the witnesses satisfied the requirement of Section 50, evidence Act, and, as such, was admissible to prove the parentage of the plaintiff. The devolution of family property is often a very valuable evidence of conduct within the meaning of Section 50. As I have shown above, the defendants witnesses hate clearly stated that, after the death of Nawab Khan, Bibi Baratan got into possession, and, after her death, her two sons. Ashique and Shafique, also got joint possession of the suit properties. In the case of Bishwanath Gosain v. Dulhin Laltnuni , similar views were expressed and the earlier two decisions referred to above were relied on. 9. Ashique and Shafique, also got joint possession of the suit properties. In the case of Bishwanath Gosain v. Dulhin Laltnuni , similar views were expressed and the earlier two decisions referred to above were relied on. 9. In view of what has been discussed above, I think, the learned Additional Subordinate Judge came to the right conclusion in holding that Baratan was the daughter of Nawab Khan and so her heirs also could claim inheritance in the properties left by Nawab Khan. 10. The next point which was raised before us relates to the question whether Sadiqan, admittedly the daughter of Darban Ali Khan, predeceased her father or survived him. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge has given his finding to the effect that she survived her father, Darban Ali. But, on his point, I Additional Subordinate Judge came think, the evidence is not so coercive as to come to this finding: rather, the evidence and the circumstances, taken together, would go to establish that Sadiqan predeceased her father. Defendants 1 and 2 did not press this point for the first time in this partition suit; even in a previous litigation, which had been brought by Bibi Raquibulnisha and others (Requibulnissa being the mother of defendants 3, 4 and 8) against defendants 1 and 2, it was alleged on behalf of the plaintiff of the plaintiffs that Sadiqan died during her fathers life time. Exhibit 5(a) is the judgment of that title suit (Title Suit No. 94/15 of 1952/54); and Ext. 5 is the judgment of the Appellate Court. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge has discarded the evidence of the witnesses of the plaintiffs on this point, because, in his opinion, these witnesses gave false evidence when they stated that Nawab Khan had no daughter; and so their evidence that Sadiqan died before her father could not be relied upon. In my opinion, it is not a correct way of approach to the oral evidence of the witnesses. The doctrine of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus has not received any judicial recognition in this country. A witness may make his statements on several facts. In my opinion, it is not a correct way of approach to the oral evidence of the witnesses. The doctrine of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus has not received any judicial recognition in this country. A witness may make his statements on several facts. Some statements which are in conformity with the reliable documentary evidence or other circumstances can be accepted by the Court, whereas the statements of the same witness concerning other facts which are not supported by any document or which are against the reliable documentary evidence or circumstances cannot be accepted. Moreover, it is a question to see as to how far the evidence of a particular witness can be found to be acceptable. On behalf of defendants 1 and 2, great reliance has been placed on the recital made in the deed of gift (Ext. A), which was executed by Bibi Ebadari, the widow of Darban Ali Khan, and Bibi Ayesha, the widow of Abdul Karim. The donees under this deed of gift were defendants 1 and 2. From a close perusal of this document, it appears that both these ladies were out to favour defendants 1 and 2 and were very much anxious to convey as much larger share of the property as possible. In that view of the matter, the recital that Darban Ali Khan died leaving these two ladies as well as Sadiqan appears to be highly motivated. This is apparent from the fact that in this deed of gift they included much more share in the family lands then could possibly accrue to them. So, this solitary recital in the deed of gift to the effect that Sadiqan died after the death of her father, Darban Ali Khan, cannot be taken at its face value. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge has referred to the judgment, Exts. 5, 5(a) and C. In the title suit, it was never held that Sadiqan died in the life time of Darfaan Ali. The only decision given in that suit was that the deed of gift executed by Ebadan and Ayesha was a genuine transaction and it would affect their legitimate share only. 5, 5(a) and C. In the title suit, it was never held that Sadiqan died in the life time of Darfaan Ali. The only decision given in that suit was that the deed of gift executed by Ebadan and Ayesha was a genuine transaction and it would affect their legitimate share only. It was tried to be shown on behalf of defendants 1 and 2 that, on this deed of gift, Abdullah Khan and Wahid Ali Khan had also signed as attesting witnesses and there was an endorsement to the effect that they had read the contents thereof. But, curiously enough, this relevant page, on which the attestation is alleged to have been made, is missing from the original document. It was, therefore, suggested on behalf of the plaintiffs that the signatures of Abdullah and Wahid Ali had been forged on that document and so that page was purposely removed from the deed of gift. In my opinion, therefore, this document cannot satisfactorily establish that Sadi, qan had died after the death of her father. 11. I would then refer to the oral evidence given in the case on this point. P.W. 5 Motiur Rahman is resident of the same village, Morbara, and he stated that Darban Ali Khan had a son and a daughter and the daughter died during his life time, lie frankly admitted in his cross-examination that he had not seen that daughter. P.W. 6 Wahid Khan, aged about 65 years, comes from the same village. He has said that the daughter of Darban Ali died during his life time. According to him, Darban Ali died 25-30 years ago. As the daughter of Durban Ali had died much earlier, he could not remember her name, though in his cross- examination he stated that he had seen Sadiqan and she died at the age of 35-36 years. There is nothing else in his cross-examination to which any valable reference can be made. P.W.8 Tafazzul Mian, aged about 50 years, stated that the daughter of Darban Ali died during the life time of her father. He also stated that Darban Ali died about 30 years ago. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of defendants 1 and 2 drew our attention to another statement of this witness where he said that he was 14-15 years old when he saw Sadiqari and Sadiqan died ten. years after that. He also stated that Darban Ali died about 30 years ago. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of defendants 1 and 2 drew our attention to another statement of this witness where he said that he was 14-15 years old when he saw Sadiqari and Sadiqan died ten. years after that. On strict arthmetical calculation it would mean that Sadiqan died twenty-five years before the date of his evidence in 1963. In my opinion, an illiterate witness like P.W. 8 should not be taken very strictly when he gives any arithmetical calculation concerning the births or death of members of another family, Because of lapse of time, some such discrepancy is bound to occur. The last witness is P.W.9 Mohammad Ayub Khan, who is plaintiff No, 1, of course, and he is bound to support his case to the effect that Sadiqan predeceased Darban Ali Khan. 12. As against this evidence, we have got the evidence of few witnesses who have spoken concerning this point on behalf of defendants 1 and 2, D. w.1 is, of course, defendant No. 1; and so no comment need be made against his statements. Apparently his evidence would show that he wants to grab as much of the family property as possible. He stated that, on the death of Nawab Khan, his three sons entered into possession and Darban Ali got one-third share in the milkiat. This statement is apparently wrong, because the widow of Nawab Ali was till then alive. He could not say in which year his mother died. D. W. 2 Noor Mohammad Khan is resident of village Tarwara, and he made a bald statement to the effect that Bibi Sadiqan died after the death of Darban Khan. He could not give the year of the death of Sadiqan, and according to him, she was aged 40-45 years when she died. He further stated that she died about ten years after the death of Darban Khan. This is not consistent with the evidence of D. W. 1. The other witnesses, of course, were examined on behalf of defendants 5 to 7, and they did not say anything about this particular point. They were examined mostly on the point whether Baratan was the daughter of Nawab Khan from his first wife. This is not consistent with the evidence of D. W. 1. The other witnesses, of course, were examined on behalf of defendants 5 to 7, and they did not say anything about this particular point. They were examined mostly on the point whether Baratan was the daughter of Nawab Khan from his first wife. In such state of affairs, I think, the evidence given on behalf of the plaintiffs must be accepted, and I fell no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that Sadiqan died during the life time of her father Darban Khan. 13. The finding of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge to the effect that the lands given in the schedules to the plaint were available for partition has not been challenged in this Court. 14. Then remains the question whether Darban Ali Khan was possessed of any personal property in which only his heirs, and not all the heirs of Nawab Khan, could take inheritance. There are two blocks of such lands. One block consists of 1 bigha 18 kathas 18 dhurs comprised of plots Nos. 675, 677, 731, 732, 733 and 1338. As regards these plots, it was conceded by lawyers on behalf of the plaintiffs in the court below that they were khas lands of Darban Ali Khan. In this Court also, no dispute has been raised concerning this block of land. The other block consists of 2 bighas 1 katha 2 dhurs. This block of land has been held to be the khas property of Darban Ali Khan by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, except plot No. 1370, the area of which is only 10 dhurs. Concerning this plot, there is absolutely no evidence on behalf of the defendants to show that it was, the personal property of Darban Ali Khan. Concerning the remaining plots as mentioned in schedule 1, first party, appended to the written statement of defendants 1 and 2, it may be observed that the entries made in the respect of these plots in the survey record of rights (Exts. D and D/1) clearly go to indicate that these plots were the personal lands of Darban Ali Khan. They have been mentioned as bakasht malik lands. But, in the remarks . column it has been indicated that these plots were in possession of Darban Ali as his kasht land, and the rental is also noted. D and D/1) clearly go to indicate that these plots were the personal lands of Darban Ali Khan. They have been mentioned as bakasht malik lands. But, in the remarks . column it has been indicated that these plots were in possession of Darban Ali as his kasht land, and the rental is also noted. There is no other evidence concerning these plots. In such circumstances, I feel no difficulty in agreeing with the view of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge that these plots are the khas properties of Darban Ali Khan and only his heirs would be entitled to a share in it. 15. Now remains the question as to what share the plaintiffs and other defendants can claim in the suit lands. Calculation of shares of various heirs in a Mohamedan family extending over several generations and comprising of several branches is rather very complicated task. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge calculated the shares of the plaintiffs in the properties of Nawab Khan to be 891673/1582848. We were at a loss to come to this share by our own calculation. We, therefore, requested learned Counsel of both sides to work out the figures separately and give us an agreed list containing the shares of all the various parties, On behalf Of the respondents, Mr. S.S. Asghar Hussain gave us the required chart. Mr. Mazhar Hussain, appearing for the plaintiff- appellants, did not give any chart himself, and he only remarked that, though not conceding to the shares as calculated by Mr. Asghar Hussain, he had implicit faith in his calculation and he had no comment to offer on the calculation made by him. In order that there may not be any future trouble regarding the calculation of the shares, I propose to give the detailed calculation step by step concerning the shares of the different parties. Schedule I represents the shares of the different parties in the properties of Nawab Khan; and Schedule II shows the shares of the parties in the khas properties of Dar-ban Ali Khan. On a close perusal of this chart, the calculation appears to be correct. Schedule I referred to Shares in Nawab Alis properties. Schedule I represents the shares of the different parties in the properties of Nawab Khan; and Schedule II shows the shares of the parties in the khas properties of Dar-ban Ali Khan. On a close perusal of this chart, the calculation appears to be correct. Schedule I referred to Shares in Nawab Alis properties. On Nawabs death: His widow Taran got 1/8th His son Darban got 1/4th His son Abdullah got 1/4th His son Mahid got 1/4th His daughter Baratan got 1/8th On Darban Alis death: Darbans widow Ebadan got 1/8th of his 1/4th = 1/32 His son Karim got 7/8th of his 1/4th = 7/32 On Karims death: Karims mother Ebadan got 1/3rd of his 7/32nd = 7/96 Karims widow Ayesha got 1/4th of his 7/32nd = 7/128 Karims uncle, Abdullah, got half of the residue = 35/768 Karims other uncle, Wahid, got half of the residue = 35/768 Therefore, after Karims death, the shares in Nawab Alis properties were as follows: Taran 1/8th = 96/768 Baratan 1/8th = 96/768 Abdullah 1/4th plus 35/768 = 227/768 Wahid 1/4th plus 35/768th = 227/768 Ebadan 1/32 plus 7/96 = 80/768 Ayesha 7/128th = 42/768 On Abdullahs death: His widow Raquibulnissa got 1/8th of 227/768th = 3623/18432 His three daughters (D. 3, 4 & 8) 2/3 of 227/768th = 3632/18432 His mother Taran 1/6th of 227/768th = 908/18432 His brother Wahid got 1/24 of 227/768th = 227/18432 Therefore, the shares of the said heirs in Nawab Alis properties were as follows: Taran 96/768 pks 908/1842 = 3212/18432 Wahid 227/768 plus 227/18432 = 5675/18432 D. 1 & 2 (Bonees of Ebadan and Ayesha)... 122/768 = 2928/18432 Baratan = 2304/18432 The plaintiffs got the shares of Wahid and Taran while defendants 3, 4 and 8 got the share of Raquibulnissa, their mother, also. Plaintiffs got 3212/18432 plus 1/32 5675/18432 = 8887/18432 Defendants 1 and 2 got 80/768 plus 42/768 = 2928/18432 Defendants 3, 4 and 8 got 681/18432 plus 3632/18432 = 4313/18432 (each getting 1 /3rd) Baratan i.e. defendants 5 to 7 got ... 2304/18432. The total would come to 8887/2928/4313/2304 ---------------------- 18432 18432/18432 = whole interest of Nawab Al i Schedule II referred to Shares of the parties in the execlusive property of Darban Ali. On Darbana death. 2304/18432. The total would come to 8887/2928/4313/2304 ---------------------- 18432 18432/18432 = whole interest of Nawab Al i Schedule II referred to Shares of the parties in the execlusive property of Darban Ali. On Darbana death. His widow Ebadan got 1/8th His son Karim got 7th On Karims death His widow Ayesha got 1/4th of 7/8th = 7/32 His mother Ebadan got 1/3rd of 7/8th = 7/24 His uncles Abdullah and Wahid got 7/8th - (7/32 plus 7/24) = 84 - 49 = 38/96 ------- 96 Therefore each got 35/192nd. On Abdullahs death His widow Raquibulnnissa got 1/8th of 35/192nd His daughters (D. 3, 4 & ,8) got 2/3rd of 35/192nd. His mother Taran got 1/6th of 35/192nd. His brother Wahid got 1/24th of 35/192nd. Therefore, the shares of these parties in this property were as follows: Plaintiffs succeeding to Wahid and Taran 35/4608 plus 35/1152 plus 35/192 = 35 35 35 4608 1152 192 140 35 840 = 1015 4608 4608 Defendants 3 4 and 8 = 560 105 = 605 4608 4608 4608 (Each 1/3rd) Defendants 1 and 2 z = 122 = 2928 192 4608 Total 1015 665 2928 = 4608 4608 16. Mr. Mazhar Hussain submitted that by any calculation the share of the plaintiffs as given by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge should not be minimised because there is no cross-appeal or cross-objection as regards that matter. In my opinion, it must be pointed out that the shares of the plaintiffs would be very slightly affected because of the fact that is has been found on reliable evidence that Baratan was the daughter of Nawab Ali Khan. Moreover, it should also be borne in mind that any mistake in arithmetical calculation of shares can. be rectified at any stage. Even if some mistake in calculation would have been shown to the court below, it could have also rectified its own mistake. I think, this can be done by this Court as well. So, there should be no misapprehension in the mind of the learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs- appellants. 17. In the result, this appeal succeeds in part, and so, in the circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs of this Court. A modified preliminary decree, as indicated above, shall be prepared concerning the share of the plaintiffs. N.L.Untwalia, J. 18 I agree.