The court affirmed that properties held by a deceased under Mahomedan law are to be treated as jointly acquired with the spouse, leading to equitable shares in inheritance.

CAV JUDGMENT

RFA No.935/2020 is filed by the appellants/plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.11.2019 passed in O.S.No.25162/2019 on the file of LXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Mayo Hall, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred as ‘the Trial Court’), so far as lesser share granted in the suit schedule ‘B’ properties.

2. RFA Crob.No.33/2023 is filed by the cross objector/defendant challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.11.2019 passed in O.S.No.25162/2019 on the file of LXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Mayo Hall, Bengaluru, thereby, challenging granting share of property in favour of appellants/plaintiffs and contended that the appellants/plaintiffs are not entitled any share in the suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties. Therefore, against decreeing the suit the cross objector/defendant has preferred the above cross objection.

3. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

4. The appellants/plaintiffs have filed suit for partition in the property left by their sister Smt. Shahnaz Begum by metes and bounds. It is the case of the appellants/plaintiffs that plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are brothers and plaintiff No.3 is sister and defendant is husband of Shahnaz Begum. It is the case of the appellants/plaintiffs that the suit schedule properties belonging to one Smt. Shahnaz Begum (wife of defendant) as she has purchased the suit schedule ‘A’ property by virtue of registered sale deed dated 03.12.1987 and suit schedule ‘B’ properties through registered sale deed dated 09.02.2010. The said Shahnaz Begum died on 06.01.2014 leaving behind her husband/defendant, brothers/plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and sister/plaintiff No.3 to succeed her estate. After death of Shahnaz Begum, the appellants/plaintiffs got issued legal notice calling upon the defendant to make partition and to allot 50% of share in her estate left by Shahnaz Begum, but the cross objector/defendant denied the same. Therefore, the appellants/plaintiffs have filed suit for partition and separate possession by metes and bounds.

5. The cross objector/defendant has appeared through his counsel and filed written statement and denied all the averments made in the plaint. The cross objector/defendant has admitted the relationship of the appellants/plaintiffs with deceased Shahnaz Begum also with him. Further, admitted that the suit schedule properties were standing in the name of his wife (Shahnaz Begum) till her lifetime and contended that the said properties are purchased by him in the name of Shahnaz Begum out of his love and affection. Further contended that the suit schedule properties have not come to his wife from her parental side therefore, the appellants/plaintiffs are not entitled to have share in the said properties. The cross objector/defendant has constructed the building over the suit schedule ‘A’ property and he is receiving the rents during lifetime of his wife therefore, the cross objector/defendant is absolute owner of the property and the appellants/plaintiffs do not have any share by making claim of partition.

6. Further the cross objector/defendant has taken contention that the suit is barred by limitation as his wife (Shahnaz Begum) died on 06.01.2014, the suit is filed after five years. Therefore, the suit is barred by limitation.

7. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that their sister Shahnaz Begum is the absolute owner of the suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties, as contend