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

2010 Supreme(Mad) 2520

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. PALANIVELU
Syed Dowlath Hussain (Died) & Others
Versus
Khatoon Bi (since deceased) & Others
A.S.No.396 of 1989
Decided On :Decided On : 28-06-2010

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants:T.P. Sankaran, Advocate.
For Respondents:R3 to R8, T. Velumani, Advocate.

The sale deed was held to be void ab initio as the husband of the minor wife was not recognized as a guardian by law, and thus, it need not be set aside. Consequently, the first respondent was treated as in joint possession of the suit property. The plea based on adverse possession was rejected as the appellant had not prescribed any title by adverse possession to the suit property.

Headnote:

Muslim Law - Property Dispute - Sections 359, 31 of the Specific Relief Act - The court considered the validity of a sale deed dated 02.12.1936 and the applicability of Muslim personal law in determining the guardianship of a minor wife. The court held that the sale deed was void ab initio as the husband of the minor wife was not recognized as a guardian by law, and thus, it need not be set aside. Consequently, the first respondent was treated as in joint possession of the suit property. The plea based on adverse possession was rejected as the appellant had not prescribed any title by adverse possession to the suit property.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title to a property and for delivery of possession. The defendants denied the allegations, claiming that the sale deed was void and the plaintiff had no title to the suit property.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the sale deed dated 02.12.1936 to be void ab initio and not binding on the first respondent. Consequently, the first respondent was treated as in joint possession of the suit property. The plea based on adverse possession was rejected as the appellant had not prescribed any title by adverse possession to the suit property.

Issues: Validity of the sale deed dated 02.12.1936, possession and enjoyment of the suit property, and adverse possession.

Ratio Decidendi: The sale deed was held to be void ab initio as the husband of the minor wife was not recognized as a guardian by law, and thus, it need not be set aside. Consequently, the first respondent was treated as in joint possession of the suit property. The plea based on adverse possession was rejected as the appellant had not prescribed any title by adverse possession to the suit property.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and decree of the trial Court were confirmed.

Judgment :-

1. This Appeal Suit has been filed by the appellants to set aside the decree and judgment of the learned Trial Judge, Sub Court, Vellore, North Arcot District, dismissing the suit in O.S.No.273 of 1985 on 23.02.1989.

2(i). The case of the plaintiff is that the schedule described property originally belonged to Khursheed Kathun Bi, W/o Md.Ismail Sheriff. She had mortgaged the schedule mentioned property and other property to one Zaibunnissa under the registered mortgage deed dated 11.10.1928. The said Khursheed Kathun Bi had two daughters viz. Safia Bi and Khatoon Bi. Safia Bi is the mother of the plaintiff and Md.Ismail @ Syed Abdul Wahab Sahib is the father of the plaintiff. The said Khursheed Khatton Bi had executed a registered settlement deed dated 09.11.1930 in favour of her two daughters bequeathing the house bearing door NO.353 and 354 with the direction that they should discharge the mortgage debt due on the mortgage deed 11.10.1928. 2(ii). The said settlement deed was accepted and acted upon and thereupon Safia Bi and minor Khatoon Bi represented by her husband Syed Azeez Ahmed sold both houses 353 & 354 to Mohmed Ismail @ Syed Abdul Wahab Sahib under the sale deed dated 01.12.1936 for a valid consideration of Rs.2,000/-. Abdul Wahab had agreed to discharge the mortgage debt of Rs.1,700/- and paid the balance Rs.300/- of which Safia Bi had taken Rs.150/- and the remaining sum of Rs.150/- was paid to Syed Azeez Ahmed. Since then, Md.Ismail @ Syed Abdul Wahab became the absolute owner of the said houses 353 and 354. The said Md.Ismail @ Syed Abdul Wahab Sahib had paid Rs.900/-out of Rs.1,700/- and there was balance of Rs.800/- for which Md.Ismail @ Abdul Wahab Sahib had executed another mortgage deed dated 04.12.1936 in favour of the said Zaibunnissa. The said mortgage debt was discharged by Md.Ismail @ Abdul Wahab Sahib on 22.05.1937. Thus, Md.Ismail @ Abdul Wahab Sahib after discharging the entire mortgage debt, became the absolute owner of the said property. 2(iii). The said Md.Ismail @ Syed Abdul Wahab Sahib had executed a registered settlement deed dated 07.02.1949 in favour of Khatoon Bi, as regards a property bearing door No.151, at Main Bazaar Road, Vellore. The said Khatoon Bi had accepted the said settlement deed and acted upon the same. The said Khatoon Bi was 16 years old on the date of the sale deed dated 02.12.1936. She had not challenged the sale deed dated 02.12.1936 either within three yeas after attaining the majority or within 12 years from the date of alienation, thus, the claim of Khatoon Bi is barred by limitation and she had lost her title to the said property even by adverse possession by not challenging the said sale deed within the period of limitation. 2(iv). The house bearing door No.354 was bifurcated as 354 and 354/1. The said Md.Ismail @ Syed Abdul Wahab Sahib had rented out the house bearing door No.354/1 to Hakeem syed Abdul Hassan Sahib and Jaffar Ali Sahib. Late in 1958, Syed Azeez Ahmed Sahib was permitted by MD.Ismail @ Syed Abdul Wahab Sahib to be in occupation of the said house. Since they refused to vacate, Md.Ismail @ Syed Abdul Wahab Sahib had filed H.R.C.O.P.No.35 of 1957 on the file of the learned District Munsif Court, Vellore. In the said R.C.O.P. the said Syed Azeez Ahmed Sahib filed a counter that he and his wife for convenient enjoyment moved into the house after the house fell vacant at the suggestion of Md. Ismail @ Syed Abdul Wahab Sahib, further the Syed Azeez Ahmed had even admitted in the evidence that he and his wife were put in possession by Md. Ismail @ Syed Abdul Wahab Sahib himself. 2(v). Thus Syed Azeez Ahmed and his wife had entered into possession of the house only under the permission of Md. Ismail @ Syed Abdul Wahab Sahid in 1958. The tenants Jaffar Ali and Hakim Syed Abdul Hassan had vacated and sent the key by post. It was not accepted by Md. Ismail @ Syed Abdul Wahab Sahib. Thereupon, Syed Azeez Ahmed preferred C.M.A.No.67 of 1957 against the


















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