Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Smt. Sunita Yadav, J.
Kutubuddin Khan (Dead) Through LRs Sabu and others v. Tahir Khan (Dead) Through LRs Ishrat Begum and Others
Second Appeal No. 26 of 2005 (Gwalior): against the judgment and decree dated 27.10.2004 passed by the Third Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Appeal No. 32-A/2003;
Decided on 15.9.2023.
¼1½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk- 6 fu- 17 & 25 o"kZ i'pkr~ okni= esa la'k¨èku d¢ fy, vkosnu & foyac dk dkj.k ;g fn;k x;k fd tc dkmUlsy cgl dh rS;kjh dj jgs Fks rc mudk bl ij /;ku x;k fd la'k¨èku vko';d gSa & mä vkèkkj 25 o"kZ d¢ foyac d¢ fy, Lohdkj ugÈ fd;k tk ldrk & la'k¨èku }kjk iwoZ U;k; dk vfÒokd~ lfEefyr djuk pkgk x;k & iwoZ U;k; dk vfÒokd~ lfEefyr djuk vko';d ugÈ & vkosnu [kkfjtA , vkb vkj 1971 ,l lh 1676 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 22½
¼2½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk- 41 fu- 27 & vfrfjä lk{; d¢ fy, vkosnu & dc eatwj ugÈ fd;k tk ldrk & vfrfjä lk{; d¢ :i esa ftu nLrkostksa dks çLrqr djuk pkgk x;k og vihy d¢ fofu'p;u d¢ fy, vko”;d ugÈ & vkosnu [kkfjtA ¼iSjk 22½
¼3½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & èkkjk 100 ¼5½ & fofèk dk vfrfjä lkjoku~ ç'u fojfpr djus d¢ fy, vkosnu & dc eatwj fd;k tk ldrk gS & vfÒopu] lk{; ,oa fupys U;k;ky;¨a d¢ fu"d"kZ n`f"V esa j[krs gq,] çLrkfor ç'u fojfpr djuk visf{kr & vkosnu eatwjA ¼iSjk 23 ,oa 24½
¼4½ eqfLye fofèk & eqfLye fofèk d¢ fl)kar & èkkjk 41] 44 rFkk 56 & foÒktu & eqfLye laink & fgr dk U;kxeu] forj.k rFkk fufgr fojklr & iwoZt dh e`R;q d¢ i'pkr~ okfjlksa us mÙkjkfèkdkj esa laifÙk lkekfU;d vfHk/kkfj;ksa ds :i esa fofufnZ"V va'kksa esa çkIr dh & okfjl leLr laifÙk;¨a dk foÒktu pkgs fcuk] lkekfU;d :i ls èkkfjr ,d laifÙk d¢ foÒktu dk nkok dj ldrk gS & vkaf'kd foÒktu dk fl)kar ykxw ugÈ g¨rk D;¨afd okfjl lkekfU;d vfHk/kkjh gSa & eki v©j lhekadu djd¢ foÒktu igys ls gh fofèk }kjk fuèkkZfjr gSA ¼iSjk 29 ls 34½
¼5½ eqfLye fofèk & eqfLye fofèk d¢ fl)kar & èkkjk 44 & foØ; vÑr ,oa 'kwU; Ĩf"kr fd, tkus rFkk dCts dh iqu% çkfIr d¢ fy, okn & iwoZt dh e`R;q d¢ i'pkr~ okfjlksa us mÙkjkfèkdkj esa laifÙk lkekfU;d vfHk/kkfj;ksa d¢ :i esa fofufnZ"V va'kksa esa çkIr dh & Òou d¢ ,d Òkx esa ÒkM+snkj fuokljr & okfjlksa ds e/; foÒktu ugÈ & iwoZrj okn esa Hkh vfÒfuèkkZfjr fd foÒktu ugÈ gqvk & ,d okfjl@çfroknh Øekad 2 }kjk ÒkM+snkj dks fofufnZ"V Òkx dk foØ; & foØ; vÑr ,oa 'kwU; Ĩf"kr fd, tkus rFkk dCts dh iqu% çkfIr d¢ fy, okn çLrqqr & çfroknh Øekad 2 d¨ okn laifÙk foØ; djus dk dksbZ vfèkdkj ugÈ Fkk & çfroknh ;g lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgk fd laifÙk foÒkftr Fkh & fopkj.k U;k;ky; us foØ; dks vÑr ,oa 'kwU; Bhd&gh vfÒfuèkkZfjr fd;k & çFke vihy U;k;ky; us ;g vfÒfuèkkZfjr djus esa Ĩj =qfV dh fd laifÙk foÒkftr Fkh & foØ; foys[k vÑr ,oa 'kwU; Ĩf"kr djus d¢ lacaèk esa vihy va'kr% eatwj dh xà & dCts d¢ vuqr¨"k d¢ lacaèk esa [kkfjt dh xÃA , vkb vkj 1999 ,l lh 1441 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 35] 37] 39] 40 ,oa 45½
¼6½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & èkkjk 11 & eqfLye fofèk d¢ fl)kar & èkkjk 44 & eqfLye laifÙk & iwoZ U;k; ds fl)kar dk ykxw g¨uk & iwoZrj okn esa vfÒfuèkkZfjr fd laifÙk dk foÒktu ugÈ gqvk & i'pkrorÊ okn esa ;g iwoZrj fofu'p; iwoZ U;k; d¢ :i esa ykxw g¨xkA , vkb vkj 1971 ,l lh 1676 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 38 ls 40½
¼7½ eqfLye fofèk & eqfLye fofèk d¢ fl)kar & èkkjk 44 & foØ; vÑr ,oa 'kwU; Ĩf"kr fd, tkus rFkk dCts dh iqu% çkfIr d¢ fy, okn & iwoZt dh e`R;q d¢ i'pkr~ okfjlksa us mÙkjkfèkdkj esa laifÙk lkekfU;d vfHk/kkfj;ksa ds :i esa fofufnZ"V va'kksa esa çkIr dh & okfjlksa ds e/; foÒktu ugÈ & ,d okfjl@çfroknh Øekad 2 }kjk ÒkM+snkj dks fofufnZ"V Òkx dk foØ; & foØ; vÑr ,oa 'kwU; Ĩf"kr fd, tkus rFkk dCts dh iqu% çkfIr d¢ fy, okn çLrqr & Òou esa ÒkM+snkj dh cgu fuokljr & cgu d¢ fo#) okn çLrqr ugÈ fd;k x;k & fdlh fofufnZ"V va'k ds fy, fMØh çnku ugÈ dh tk ldrh & dCts dh iqu% çkfIr dh çkFkZuk ukeatwj dh xà & ÒkM+snkj dks e-ç- LFkku fu;a=.k vfèkfu;e d¢ micaèk¨a d¢ vuqlkj csn[ky fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¼2001½ 8 ,l lh lh 451 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 42 ,oa 43½
(1) Civil P. C., 1908 -- O. 6 R. 17 -- application for amendment in plaint after 25 years -- reason for delay given that when counsel was preparing arguments, he noticed that amendments are necessary -- said ground cannot be accepted for delay of 25 years -- plea of res judicata sought to be incorporated by amendment -- incorporation of plea of res judicata not necessary -- application dismissed. AIR 1971 SC 1676 referred to. [Para 22
(2) Civil P. C., 1908 -- O. 41 R. 27 -- application for additional evidence -- when cannot be allowed -- documents sought to be filed as additional evidence not required to decide appeal -- application dismissed. [Para 22
(3) Civil P. C., 1908 -- S. 100 (5) -- application for framing additional substantial question of law -- when can be allowed -- proposed question required to be framed in view of pleadings, evidence and findings of Courts below -- application allowed. [Paras 23 & 24
(4) Muslim Law -- Principles of Mohammedan Law -- Ss. 41, 44 and 56 -- partition -- Mohammedan estate -- devolution of interest, distribution and vested inheritance -- after death of ancestor, property succeeded by heirs as tenants-in-common in specific shares -- heir can claim partition of one of the properties held in common without seeking partition of all properties -- doctrine of partial partition not applicable because heirs are tenants-in-common -- division by metes and bounds already determined by law. [Paras 29 to 34
(5) Muslim Law -- Principles of Mohammedan Law -- S. 44 -- declaration of sale as null and void and recovery of possession -- after death of ancestor, property succeeded by heirs as tenants-in-common in specific shares -- tenant residing in one portion of house -- no partition between heirs -- held in earlier suit also that there was no partition -- specific portion sold to tenant by one heir/defendant No. 2 -- suit filed for declaration of sale as null and void and recovery of possession -- defendant No. 2 had no right to sell suit property -- defendant failed to prove that properties were partitioned -- trial Court rightly declared sale as null and void -- first appellate Court committed serious error in holding that properties were partitioned -- appeal partly allowed in respect of relief of declaration of sale deed as null an void -- dismissed in respect of relief of possession. AIR 1999 SC 1441 referred to. [Paras 35, 37, 39, 40 & 45
(6) Civil P. C., 1908 -- S. 11 -- Principles of Mohammedan Law -- S. 44 -- Mohammedan property -- applicability of principle of res judicata -- held in earlier suit that there was no partition of properties -- such earlier decision will apply as res judicata in subsequent suit. AIR 1971 SC 1676 referred to. [Paras 38 to 40
(7) Muslim Law -- Principles of Mohammedan Law -- S. 44 -- declaration of sale as null and void and recovery of possession -- after death of ancestor, property succeeded by heirs as tenants-in-common in specific shares -- no partition between heirs -- specific portion sold to tenant by one heir/defendant No. 2 -- suit filed for declaration of sale as null and void and recovery of possession -- sister of tenant residing in house -- suit not filed against sister -- decree for any specific portion cannot be given -- prayer for recovery of possession disallowed -- tenant can be evicted as per provisions of M. P. Accomdation Act. (2001) 8 SCC 451 referred to. [Paras 42 & 43
JUDGMENT
1. This Second appeal under section 100 of Civil Procedure Code (for brevity, CPC) has been filed by the appellants (Lrs. Of original plaintiff Kutubuddin) against the judgment & decree dated 27.10.2004 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Appeal No.32A/2003 reversing the judgment & decree dated 30.8.2003 and allowing the cross-objection of respondents/defendants passed by VI Civil Judge Class-1, Gwalior in Civil Suit No.102A/98, by which, the learned Civil Judge had partly allowed the suit to the extent that the sale deed dated 08.01.1985 is null & void, however, the relief for recovery of possession was denied.
2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the house No. 18/581, 49/1053 and new house No. 53/59 shown in the plaint map are situated at Mohalla Channa Kothar, Kampoo, District Gwalior (hereinafter referred to as “property in dispute”). It is also not in dispute that the aforesaid property was in the ownership and possession of one Gulam Moidden Khan, who was the father of original plaintiff Kutubuddin, original defendant No.2 Yakub and their sister Musammat Kallo who was arrayed as plaintiff No.-2 at the time of filing of suit; however, later on she did not support the plaintiff and arrayed as the defendant. The fact that plaintiff and defendants belong to Sunni Muslim Community is not in dispute. It is also not disputed that Gulam Moidden Khan died in the year 1978.
3. The further pleading is that the property in dispute is ancestral property of plaintiff Kutubuddin and defendant No.-2/Yakub Khan and Must. Kallo. One portion of the ancestral house shown in blue lines in the plaint map was sold to Smt. Krishna Kumari by Gulam Moiddeen Khan father of plaintiff and defendant No. 2 and rest of the portion was mortgaged with Kuwar Pratap Singh Chauhan on an amount of Rs. 3,500/-. The plaintiff after making entire payment had freed the mortgaged property. The plaintiff and defendant No. 2 lived together for a period of one and half year after the death of their father and thereafter started living separately. The plaintiff is living in the southern part of the disputed property at ground floor and defendant No. 2/Yakub was living at First Floor of the southern part of disputed property. The defendant No. 2 was not living in the disputed property prior to two years of filing of the civil suit by the plaintiff and is started living in his in-laws house (his wife's parental home). The defendant No. 1 Tahir Khan was living in the southern part of the disputed house at ground floor as a tenant and had not paid the rent of the tenanted house. The defendant No. 2 had constructed his own home at Appa Ganj.
4. The further pleading is that on 31.7.1985, defendant No. 1/Tahir Khan had told to the plaintiff that the disputed house, in which, he is living as a tenant was sold to him by the defendant No.-2/Yakub for a consideration of an amount of Rs. 13,000/- vide registered sale deed though the fact remains that the defendant No. 2 has no right to sale the said disputed property to the defendant No. 1 because the partition of the disputed property has not been done, therefore, the registered sale deed of the said disputed property executed by the defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No.-1 is null and void and the same deserves to be set aside.
5. The civil suit was filed by the appellant/plaintiff for handing over the vacant possession of the disputed property to the plaintiff, which is in possession of the defendant No.-1in the capacity of tenant.
6. The defendant No.-1/Tahir Khan by submitting his written statement has denied the averments made in the plaint. It is submitted that after partition of the disputed property between the plaintiff and defendant No. 2, the property shown in red lines in the plaint map had come in share of defendant No.-2/Yakub and on 8.1.1985, he sold the property to this defendant No.-1/Tahir Khan which came in his share and accordingly that part of the disputed property whic
SupremeToday
Under Mohammedan Law, co-owners are only tenants in common, and the heirs of a deceased Mohammedan being in possession of the whole estate will be deemed to be in possession on behalf of the other co....
Inheritance rights under Mohammedan Law are individual, arising only upon death, eliminating claims of joint family property made prematurely based on shared assumptions.
Registered partition deed between brothers under Mohammedan law creates valid title; High Court cannot re-appreciate facts absent substantial question of law in second appeal.
The disputed house was treated as joint family property, entitling the plaintiff and the defendant to equal 1/3 share each, as per Mahomedan Law.
Minors cannot be deprived of their ancestral property rights through relinquishment by a parent; such actions require explicit consent of the minors involved.
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
