SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1973 Supreme(Gau) 4

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
BAHARUL ISLAM, J.
Sitesh Chandra Choudhury -Appellant
Versus
Poziruddin Ahmed and others -Respondent
First Appeal No. 123 of 1965
Decided On : 19-01-1973

Advocates Appeared:
J.P. Bhattacharjee and S.N. Medhi, J.C. Medhi and S.C. Das

In a gift under Mahomedan law, delivery of possession of the subject matter is an essential element for the gift to be valid.

Headnote:

GIFT - MAHOMEDAN LAW - ESSENTIALS - DELIVERY OF POSSESSION - BURDEN OF PROOF - LIMITATION ACT (IX OF 1908), ART. 120 - SUIT FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE AND POSSESSION - DISMISSAL.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff claimed title to the suit land through a gift from the original owner, Delaluddin, to defendants 19-21, followed by a sale from defendants 19-21 to the plaintiff. Defendant 1, Delaluddin's son, contested the suit, denying the gift and sale and claiming continuous possession of the land.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove delivery of possession of the suit land by Delaluddin to defendants 19-21, a crucial element for a valid gift under Mahomedan law. The court also found that the plaintiff failed to prove that he or his vendors were ever in possession of the land, rebutting the presumption of possession arising from the sale deed.

Issues: 1. Whether the suit land was gifted by Delaluddin to defendants 19-21. 2. Whether the plaintiff proved delivery of possession of the suit land by Delaluddin to defendants 19-21. 3. Whether the plaintiff or his vendors were ever in possession of the land.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Mahomedan law, a valid gift requires a declaration of gift by the donor, acceptance by the donee, and delivery of possession by the donor to the donee. The plaintiff failed to prove delivery of possession, a crucial element for a valid gift. The plaintiff also failed to prove that he or his vendors were ever in possession of the land, rebutting the presumption of possession arising from the sale deed.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal, upholding the lower court's dismissal of the suit for declaration of title and possession.

Judgement

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Upper Assam Districts at Dibrugarh in Title Suit No. 5 of 1962.

2. The plaintiffs case, briefly, is that late Delaluddin Ahmed was the owner of 269B, 3K, 9 Lessas of land covered by dag No. 8 of N. L. R. Grant No. 46 at Moran. On June 1, 1948 Delaluddin made a gift of 4 bighag of the said land to defendants Nos. 19 to 21, who accepted the gift and came to possession. On November 24, 1950, defendants 19 to 21 sold the aforesaid 4 bighas of land (which will hereinafter be called the suit land) to the plaintiff by a registered sale deed and delivered possession. The plaintiff who was a Government servant, had to be away from the land. Taking advantage of his absence, defendant No. 14 began to construct a house on the suit land, whereupon, on enquiry, the plaintiff came to learn that defendant No. 1, who was the son of Delaluddin, had sold the suit land to defendant No. 14. The plaintiff, therefore, filed a suit before the Munsiff for declaration of his title and possession of the suit land but the plaint was returned on the ground that he had no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. The plaintiff, therefore, has filed the instant suit before the Sub-Judge for declaration of his title to the suit land, for partition and khas possession and also prayed for an injunction.

3. Only defendant No. 1 has filed a written statement and contested the suit. He has denied the alleged gift by his father and has averred that the sale of the suit land to the plaintiff was invalid, that the suit was barred by limitation and that it was bad for non-joinder of parties. He has denied that there had been any delivery of possession of the suit land by his father to the alleged donees and has averred that he is in continuous possession of the suit land since after his fathers death. He has claimed compensatory cost of Rs. 1,000/-.

4. The learned Assistant District Judge has framed the following issues: "1. Is the suit barred by limitation?

2. Is the suit bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of parties?

3. Whether late Delaluddin Ahmed made a sift of the land in suit to the defendants Nos. 19 to 21? And if so was it valid in law ?

4. Whether the defendants Nos. 10 to 21 sold the land in suit and delivered possession thereof to the plaintiff ?

5. Whether the plaintiff became owner of the land in suit by the above sale and had possession of the same as such?

6. To what reliefs, the plaintiff is entitled ?

7. Whether the defendants Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 21 are minors?"

5. After trial the learned Assistant District Judge has dismissed the suit. He has held that the plaintiff has failed to prove delivery of the suit land by Delaluddin to the alleged donees. He has also held that the sale of the suit land to the plaintiff was not a valid one and that the suit was barred under Article 120 of the Limitation Act and that the suit was also bad for non-joinder of parties as a number of co-sharers of the patta have not been joined to the suit. He has further held that the land of the alleged gift has not been proved to be identical with the suit land.

6. The most important and basic question to be decided in the matter is whether the suit land was gifted by Delaluddin to defendants Nos. 19 to 21.

The alleged donor and the donees admittedly were Mahomedans and governed by the Mahomedan personal law. In order to prove a valid gift under the Mahomedan Law, the plaintiff must prove the three essentials of a gift, namely, (i) a declaration of gift by the donor, (ii) an acceptance of the gift, express or implied, by or on behalf of the donee, and (iii) delivery of possession of the subject of the gift by the donor to the donee.

The plaintiff has not examined any witness to prove any of the three above essentials of a valid gift. He has proved a certified copy, Ext. 2, of the gift executed by Delaluddin in favour of defendants Nos. 19. 20 and 21. The learned Assistant District Judge has found




Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top