IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Mohammedan Law – Partition – Once agreement for settlement is proved as duly executed by all parties, Court would lean in favour of settlement of rights as agreed upon by parties.
(2) Interpretation of Document – In interpretation of a deed, question is not what parties to the deed may have intended to do by entering into that deed, but what is meaning of words used in deed – Court can understand true intent of deed only by words used in deed – It does not matter what parties, in their most state of mind, thought what the terms meant.

JUDGMENT

S.V.N. Bhatti, J. -

I. Factual Matrix

1. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in Civil Appeal have filed O.S. No. 13/2000 before the Court of Principal District Judge at Vishakhapatnam. The suit is for partition and possession of plaint schedule property. The prayer reads thus:

"a) for partition of plaint schedule property and allot Western half portion of the house with the Western adjoining vacant site to the 2nd plaintiff and the remaining Eastern portion building with vacant site on Eastern side has to be partitioned into our equal shares and allot one such share i.e. 1/4th of the plaint schedule on Eastern side to the 1st plaintiff and for delivery of the same;"

2. The plaint schedule consists of a residential house bearing door no. 6.18.7 in East Point Layout, Plot No.10, LIG, T.S. No. 379, Block Nos. 22 and 23 of Waltair Ward, Vishakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the plaint schedule").

3. Late Ghouse Khan S/o late Assudula Khan entered into a lease-cum-sale agreement concerning the plaint schedule with the Vishakhapatnam Urban Development Authority. Late Ghouse Khan, through a registered Sale Deed, after completing the agreed obligations, purchased the plaint schedule. Late Ghouse Khan, admittedly, remained unmarried and died on 18.02.1988, leaving behind Plaintiff No. 1 - his sister and Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 - his brothers as successors to the plaint schedule. Plaintiff No. 2 is the daughter of the late Mallika Begum who died in 1964.

3.1 On 07.02.1992, Exhibit-A6, an agreement for the settlement of family property was entered into between the parties to the suit. Defendant No. 2 is contesting the execution and enforceability of Exhibit-A6. Exhibit-A6, by tenor and text, divides the Plaint Schedule into two half shares, and the western half share agreed to be allotted to Plaintiff No. 2 and the eastern half to Plaintiff No. 1 and Defendant Nos. 1 to 3. The plaintiffs, in substance, pray for working out allotment of the shares accepted in the agreement dated 07.02.1992/Exhibit-A6 among the members of the family.

II. Plaint Averments

4. The admitted relationship between the parties is set out, and for succession or inheritance to the estate of late Ghouse Khan, parties are governed by the Mohammedan Law. The successors in interest of late Ghouse Khan, together with Plaintiff no.2, who happens to be the niece of all the parties, arrived at an agreement (Exhibit-A6), whereunder, half portion of the plaint schedule on the western side is agreed to be given to Plaintiff No. 2 and the remaining half share on the eastern side is partitioned by one-fourth share among Plaintiff No. 1 and Defendants. As part of the agreement, Plaintiff No. 2 was allowed to reside, and the other half on the eastern side agreed to be partitioned among the brothers and lone surviving sister of the late Ghouse Khan at a later point in time. Plaintiff No. 2 claims to be in possession of the western side house together with the vacant site on the western side. The plaint averred that the Defendants tried to alienate the plaint schedule and to protect the share agreed to be given to plaintiffs through Exhibit-A6 dated 07.02.1992, the plaintiffs issued legal notice dated 06.11.1999 to all the Defendants, and Defendant No. 3 alone sent the reply notice dated 20.12.1999. The Plaintiffs issued a paper publication in Eenadu Daily on 03.01.2000, asserting their share in the plaint schedule property. In view of the resistance to partition by Defendant No. 2, the suit for partition was filed by Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2.

5. Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 remained ex-parte, and Defendant No. 2 contested the Suit.

III. Averments in the Written Statement Filed by Defendant No. 2-Amanulla Khan

6. The relationship between the parties is admitted, and the first noteworthy objection in the written statement is that under the law of succession in Mohammedan law, Plaintiff No. 2 is not one of the heirs to the estate of the late Ghouse Khan. Plaintiff No. 2 is not in t