Back
2014 Supreme(AP) 1118
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
M. Seetharama Murti, J.
Hyder Valli - Appellants
Vs.
G. Venkatramana - Respondent
Second Appeal No. 1059 of 2008
Decided On: 18.06.2014
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: S.S. Bhatt, Counsel
For Respondents/Defendant: M. Adinarayana Raju, Counsel
The doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel, as enshrined in Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, does not apply to Muhammadans.
Headnote:
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT - SECTION 43 - EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY - SUBSEQUENT ACQUISITION OF TITLE - DOCTRINE OF FEEDING THE GRANT BY ESTOPPEL - APPLICABILITY TO MUHAMMADANS - MUHAMMADAN LAW - SECTION 2 OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
Mushkin Saheb, a Muhammadan, exchanged a property with the father of the defendants' vendor in 1951, despite having no title to it. In 1952, Mushkin Saheb acquired title to the property through a sale deed. The plaintiffs purchased the property from Mushkin Saheb in 1964. The defendants claimed title to the property through a sale deed executed by the son of the father of their vendor in 2000.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel, as enshrined in Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, does not apply to Muhammadans. Therefore, Mushkin Saheb's subsequent acquisition of title to the property in 1952 did not validate the exchange transaction of 1951. The court also held that the defendants could not claim title to the property through the sale deed of 2000, as their vendor's father had not acquired valid title to the property under the exchange deed of 1951.
Issues: 1. Whether the doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel, as enshrined in Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, applies to Muhammadans. 2. Whether the defendants could claim title to the property through the sale deed of 2000, despite their vendor's father not having acquired valid title to the property under the exchange deed of 1951.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 2 of the Transfer of Property Act states that nothing in the second Chapter of the Act shall be deemed to affect any rule of Muhammadan law. Therefore, Section 43 of the Act, which is part of the second Chapter, does not apply to Muhammadans. 2. Since Mushkin Saheb had no title to the property at the time of the exchange in 1951, the exchange transaction was void. The subsequent acquisition of title by Mushkin Saheb in 1952 did not validate the exchange transaction, as the doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel does not apply to Muhammadans. Therefore, the defendants could not claim title to the property through the sale deed of 2000, as their vendor's father had not acquired valid title to the property under the exchange deed of 1951.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the defendants' second appeal and upheld the trial court's decree in favor of the plaintiffs for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the property.
M. Seetharama Murti, J.
1. The unsuccessful defendants had preferred this Second Appeal assailing the decree and judgment dated 24.03.2008 of the learned II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle of Chittoor District, made in A.S. No. 15/2007 whereby the learned Additional District Judge, while partly allowing the said First Appeal had partly set aside the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2006 of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Thamballapalle, made in OS. No. 24/2003 filed for declaration of title of the plaintiffs and other reliefs in respect of land in an extent of Ac.1.50 cents out of Ac.6.70 cents of land in Survey No. 484/1 of Boorlapalli village, which is more fully described in the schedule annexed to the plaint. At the time of the admission of the Second Appeal, this Court had taken note of the substantial questions of law mentioned in the grounds 1 and 2 and the said substantial questions of law as mentioned in the grounds of objection read as follows:
"(1) Whether both the trial Court and the 1st Appellate Court committed grave error in ignoring the admission of Respondent/Plaintiff about the title of Mushkin Saheb who got it exchanged under Ex. B1 with G. Venkatramanappa? If so, whether Mushkin Saheb retained title to sell it under Ex. A6 to Respondents/Plaintiffs?
(2) Whether Respondents/Plaintiffs derive title from Mushkin Saheb after exchange with G. Venkatramanappa under Ex. B1 in 1951 to sell it to Plaintiffs under Ex. A6 in 1964? Whether the son of G. Venkatramanappa's sale in favour of Appellants/Defendants under Ex. B3 binds Respondents/Plaintiffs? (Reproduced verbatim)"
2. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for both the sides. I have perused the material record.
3. For adjudication of the lis and to answer the substantial questions of law, it is necessary to refer to the facts and other allied aspects.
4. The respondents/plaintiffs (for short 'the plaintiffs') filed the suit originally for a perpetual injunction in respect of two items of the plaint schedule property. Later, the amendment of the plaint was sought, and in the amended plaint the plaintiffs sought the relief of declaration of title only in respect of second item i.e., Ac. 1.50 cents out of Ac.6.70 cents land in Survey No. 484/1 of Boorlapalli village and a consequential perpetual injunction or in the alternative recovery of possession of the said land along with the bore well said to have been installed by the plaintiffs in the said land.
5. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is as follows: "The plaint schedule property and other properties originally belonged to one Venkatramana and his family members; after his demise in the year 1925, his wife Vemakka and their daughter Narayanamma had succeeded to his estate; during her life time the said Vemakka had executed a registered a Will dated 21.04.1942 in respect of her properties giving life interest to her grand daughter and vested remainder rights to her great grand children; the plaintiffs are the great grand son and great grand daughter respectively of the Ramalakshmamma; the plaintiffs had purchased the schedule property and other property from Mushkin Saheb under a registered sale deed dated 02.11.1964 and were and are in possession and enjoyment of the same; they had got dug up a bore Well in the plaint schedule property. The defendants without having any manner of right, title and interest in the schedule property had threatened to dispossess the plaintiffs from the said property. Therefore, the plaintiffs are constrained to approach the Court for appropriate reliefs." On the other hand, the case of the defendants is that they had purchased Ac.3.55 cents out of Ac.6.70 cents in Survey No. 484/1 under a registered sale deed dated 24.04.2000 from its rightful owner G. Sreeramulu, and that the father of the said Sreeramulu had originally purchased/got the said property from Mushkin Saheb under a registered exchange deed dated 24.07.1951, and that he (father of Sreeramulu
