Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA, J.
First Appeal No. 71 of 2011
(26.11.2025)
Mamta Jha ... Appellant
vs.
Bibi Mehnaj Begum ... Respondents
Property Law – Suit for Declaration of Title, Right and Interest over Disputed Land as also Permanent Injunction – Appeal by unsuccessful plaintiff – In a case where no direct evidence of essential ingredient of Hiba can be established Court draw inference from circumstances with respect to existence of Hiba and decide in whose favour right and authorized person has concluded Hiba – In instant case plaintiff adduced documentary evidence of existence of Hiba in favour of vendor of plaintiff [Agreement to sell dated 21.11.1999] – Since, there is no proof of direct taking of possession it can be inferred from circumstances that possession has constructively been taken by vendor of plaintiff and also by his legal representative – Defendant is occupied with malafide intention – Defendant has failed to establish that said land in question was acquired by her through Hiba from her aunt – Plaintiff-appellant is absolute and exclusive owner of disputed land – Registered sale deed is presumed to be valid in all respect unless it is proved otherwise by person who asserts that sale deed is forged and fabricated – No evidence to this effect had been adduced by defendant – Vendor of plaintiff has right title, interest and ownership over disputed land – Impugned judgment and decree passed by trial Court set aside – Appeal allowed. (Paras 20 to 24, 34, 37 and 38)
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 60 – Oral evidence must be direct and not hearsay – It must be given by person who saw it. (Para 25)
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 – Contract Act, 1872 – Section 12 – Burden of proof lies on the person who asserted fact of insanity and law in this regard based on presumption that the person is sane – As defendant has asserted the fact that vendor of plaintiff was insane at the time of entering into contract – No witnesses has specified that at the particular time when sale deed was executed vendor was insane so, oral evidence produced by defendant to prove insanity was not corresponding to discharge burden of proving insanity at the time of execution of sale deed – There being presumption in favour of sanity, person who relies on unsoundness of mind must prove it sufficiently to satisfy this test – Defendants/opposite party have failed to prove that vendor of plaintiff was of unsound mind at the time sale deed was entered into. (Paras 27, 29 and 30)
Registration Act, 1908 – Section 34 – Registered Sale Deed having recitals for transfer of right, title and interest in favour of recipient, along with recitals of sale considerations, shall give presumption of a valid title – It is entirely upon Defendants to establish otherwise and to prove that it did not reflect true nature of transaction. (Para 35)
Ramesh Chand Malviya, J.—This First Appeal has been filed against the Judgment & order dated 14.03.2011 and decree dated 28.03.2011 passed by the learned Sub-Judge 1st, Bhagalpur in Title Suit No. 454 of 2009 whereby the plaintiff-appellant's suit was dismissed with cost.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties where required shall be referred to in terms of their status before the learned trial court.
3. The plaintiff/appellant filed the suit praying for the declaration of their title, rights, and interest over the disputed land as listed in Schedule 1 of the plaint. They also sought a decree against the defendant for recovery of possession of the property in Schedule 2 of the plaint. Additionally, the plaintiff/appellant sought an order of permanent injunction against the disputed land and requested compensation for the expenses of the case, among other reliefs.
4. The plaintiff/appellant claimed the aforesaid relief alleging that the plaintiff-appellant purchased the suit land with a total area of 11 kathas 18 dhurs, equivalent to 8,568 sq. ft., situated at Mohalla Barahpura, Pranwati Lane, P.S. Kotwali (Ishaquechak), District Bhagalpur, from its absolute owner Md. Jiyauddin, son of Late Moinuddin, by a registered sale deed dated 12.03.2003 executed for valuable consideration. It was further averred that the said Md. Jiyauddin was the husband of the sole defendant-respondent, Bibi Mehnaj Begum, and that the plaintiff-appellant was duly placed in peaceful possession of the property upon registration of the deed.
5. The plaintiff/appellant asserted that the disputed land formed part of the ancestral estate of Md. Jiyauddin, who had acquired it upon an amicable family partition and also through an oral hiba (gift) from his maternal aunt, Bibi Najmun Nisha. The said Md. Jiyauddin, being in absolute ownership and possession of the property, executed a registered sale deed dated 12.03.2003 in favour of the plaintiff-appellant for valuable consideration, and possession of the property was duly delivered to her upon registration of the deed. However, the learned counsel for the defendant-respondent opposed this version of the facts, contending that Bibi Najmun Nisha never transferred the land to Md. Jiyauddin, and instead, it was Bibi Mehnaj Begum, the sole defendant in this case, who had acquired the said land from Bibi Najmun Nisha by way of an oral hiba. According to the defendant’s case, Md. Jiyauddin had no title or ownership in respect of the disputed property, and therefore, the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff-appellant conveyed no valid right or interest. The competing arguments concerning the mode of acquisition of Bibi Najmun Nisha’s property form an essential issue in this case because it is necessary to see whether Mohammad Jiyauddin had received the disputed property as heir and through oral gifts from Najmun Nisha or not.
6. As recorded in paragraph 13 of the impugned judgment, the undisputed facts of the case reveal that the common ancestor, Abdul Gaffar, was the absolute owner of 96 kathas of land, each katha measuring 720 sq. ft. Upon his demise, the property devolved upon his heirs: two sons, Makouddin and Moin Gaffar, and four daughters, Bibi Badrun Nisha, Bibi Naima Khatun, Bibi Najmun Nisha, and Bibi Husnara. Their respective shares are as follows: Makouddin received 24 kathas, Moin Gaffar received 24 kathas, and each of the four daughters received 12 kathas. It further appears that Bibi Badrun Nisha had only one child, Bibi Mehnaj Begum, who is the sole defendant-respondent in this case. Bibi Husnara, on the other hand, had two sons, Md. Jiyauddin and Md. Jasimuddin, and two daughters, Nargis Jahan and Wismil Jahan. Bibi Mehnaj Begum was married to Md. Jiyauddin, the son of Bibi Husnara. It is pertinent to note that Bibi Najmun Nisha did not have any children, and she died, leaving behind no direct heir. This factual matrix concerning ownership and inheritance is further illustrated below by way o
The court established that a transaction could be classified as a mortgage rather than a sale, emphasizing the burden of proof and admissibility of oral evidence.
An unregistered gift deed does not confer title to real property, necessitating proper registration and the inclusion of all necessary parties in a suit for declaration.
Sale deeds executed by a senior family member are valid if conducted for legal necessity and with mental competency, reinforcing the rights of the karta under coparcenary property law.
The court held that the plaintiffs proved ownership through valid Sale Deed; defendants failed to substantiate adverse possession claims due to contradictions in evidence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the defendants were estopped from claiming the sale deed was void due to their failure to challenge it for over 30 years, and their failure to....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
