High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN
Inum Beevi
Versus
K.S. Syed Ahamed Kabir (died) and others
Appeal Suit No. 1034 of 1987
Decided on: 17-11-2000
1. Thedefendant is the appellant.
2. The respondent filed a suit for partition of his three fourth share in the suit property and have separate possession of three fourth suit property and other reliefs. The suit properties only belonged to one Haji Shahul Hameed(SH). He died on 12.1.1986. As per Mohamedan Law the appellant (his wife) and the respondent (his brother) are his heirs, the respondent being entitled to three fourth share and the appellant one fourth. Prior to the suit the respondent sent suit notice dated 27.1.1986 claiming partition to which the appellant replied on 6.7.1986 for which a rejoinder had also been issued. The claim made by the appellant that her husband had given her the properties by a gift deed dated 10.1.1984 was false. The gift deed was obtained from SH when he was under the undue influence of the appellant and not in a lucid mental condition so any document obtained from him is void. Several properties to which SH had neither right nor title have been included fraudulently in the document dated 10.1.1984. Item Nos.ll and 12 of the suit properties actually belonged to SH and they were purchased benami in the appellant's name. The gift deed was also contrary to the Doctrine of Mushaa and hence not valid. A claim was also made in respect of the cement business. Hence the suit for partition.
3. The appellant filed a written statement denying all the averments made by the respondent and his entitlement to three fourth share in the suit property. Item Nos.ll and 12 of the suit properties had been purchased by her under two sale deeds dated 9.1.1956 and 3.5.1975, long prior to the death of her husband from out of her own money and she had been paying taxes and enjoying the same exclusively. The late SH has no right to the properties. Late SH has no right to the other suit properties at the time of death and therefore, the respondent cannot claim any share in them. To the suit notice the appellant had given all the details regarding the gift deed. The gift deed is valid. The late SH had given the suit property out of his own accord and the same had been accepted by the appellant and possession was also taken. Her husband had lived long after the gift deed. The allegations regarding the mental and physical incapacity of her husband was also denied. The gift also was not contrary to the Doctrine of Mushaa. The appellant is not liable to render any accounts nor are there any cement stock with her. The suit had to be dismissed.
4. The learned Sub-ordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram (Madurai) framed seven issues and on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit. Against this the present appeal has been filed.
5. Thefollowing questions have to be determined:
(1) Whether the Ex-B4 has been validly executed and registered?
(2) Whether the donor executed the gift deed out of his own free will?
(3) Whether there was delivery of possession to complete the gift?
(4) Whether the properties covered by Exs-B2 and B3 were purchased by the appellant's husband benami in her name?
(5) Whether the Doctrine of Mushaa will apply?
6. Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that here was a case of a devoted wife receiving a gift from SH, her husband of 45 years' marriage. The respondent had not been in very amicable terms with SH (his brother), the appellant and SH had no issues. So there was nothing strange in the husband wanting to make provision for his wife. The learned counsel submitted that there was enough evidence to show the appellant had also accepted it and taken possession. Exs-B5 to B7 show that even during the life time of SH, the appellant had applied for mutation of names in the revenue records. Further, when the gift was by a husband to a wife or vice-versa, the strict application of proof of delivery of possession is not required unlike in cases where the gift is to a stranger.
7. The Court below had taken great pains to examine the left thumb impres
1999 (3) CTC 156 (20) AIR 1970 All 170 (32)
AIR 1990 SC 1173 (26) AIR 1963 SC 1270 (23)
1979 (2) SCC 158 (20) AIR 1958 Mad 527 (30)
1976 (I) MLJ 1 (12) AIR 1932 PC 13 (28)
2000 (1) CTC 359 (18) AIR 1970 Mad 17 (28)
1996 (2) SCC 704 (20) AIR 1964 Mad 373 (28
AIR 1976 MP 194 (12) AIR 1951 SC 280 (24)
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.