Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 823 (GAU)

Md. Jahuruddin v. Musstt. Hussain Banu

2012-07-17

UJJAL BHUYAN

body2012
JUDGMENT Ujjal Bhuyan, J. 1. Heard Ms. B. Devi, learned counsel for the appellants. None appears for the respondents. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.07.1996 passed by the Assistant District Judge, Nagaon in Title Appeal No. 29/1985 reversing the judgment and decree dated 24.06.1985 of the Munsiff No. 2 Nagaon in Title Suit No. 29/1979 on the issue of possession. 2. The facts of the case may be briefly noted. 3. The suit land measuring 1 bigha 4 kathas 19 Lechas belonged to one Late Haji Iman Ali, the father-in-law of the plaintiff. The suit land was covered by annual patta. During his lifetime, Haji Iman Ali gifted the suit land to the plaintiff by executing registered gift deed dated 09.10.1950. Thereafter, possession of the suit land was handed over to the plaintiff and she continued to enjoy peaceful possession over the suit land. She also got her name mutated in respect of the suit land in the revenue record. In the year 1970, one Sri Ahmed Ali, the defendant No. 2 in the suit, in collusion with the defendant No. 1 Md. Jahuruddin, forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff from a portion of the suit land measuring 2 kathas. At that stage, the plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 4 of 1970, which was subsequently withdrawn by her with permission to refile. Subsequently, the annual patta of the suit land was converted into periodic patta, which was issued to the plaintiff on 22.05.1974 and 31.08.1974. However, during the pendency of Title Suit No. 04 of 1970, the defendants forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff from the entire suit land. Subsequently, the defendant No. 2 purchased a portion of the suit land through a registered sale deed No. 3780 dated 02.11.1976 from the plaintiff. However, the remaining operation of the suit land continued to be under the forcible occupation of the defendant No. 1. 4. Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 29/1979 for declaration of her title over the suit land and for delivery of possession. 5. The defendant No. 1 contested the suit by filing written statement. He denied any execution of gift deed by Haji Iman Ali to the plaintiff and contended that Haji Iman Ali had sold the suit land and also delivered possession to him. 5. The defendant No. 1 contested the suit by filing written statement. He denied any execution of gift deed by Haji Iman Ali to the plaintiff and contended that Haji Iman Ali had sold the suit land and also delivered possession to him. His further case was that during resettlement operation of 1968-69, annual patta was issued in respect of the suit land in the name of Haji Iman Ali. According to him, the plaintiff in collusion with the revenue staff, got her name mutated in respect of the suit land in the revenue record. He also contended that at the time of execution of the gift deed, the plaintiff was not the daughter-in-law of Haji Iman Ali as she was divorced by her husband and the two of them remarried only in the year 1955-56. He also took the plea that the suit land was mortgaged by Haji Iman Ali to one Md. Giyasuddin. After the land was redeemed from Md. Giyasuddin, the same was sold to him. 6. On consideration of the pleadings, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Is there cause of action for the suit? 2. Is the suit maintainable in the present form? 3. Is the suit barred by limitation? 4. Is the suit barred by adverse possession? 5. (a) Whether the suit has been properly valued? (b) If so, whether adequate court fee has been paid? 6. Whether plaintiff has right, title and interest over the suit land? 7. Whether plaintiff's claim of possession and dispossession is true? 8. To what relief, if any, are the parties entitled? 9. (a) Whether any deed of gift was executed by late Haji Iman Ali in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the land measuring 3 bighas 4 kathas 18 lechas including the suit land? (b) If so, whether possession of aforesaid gifted land was delivered to the plaintiff in accordance with law? 7. Both the sides adduced evidence in support of their respective claims. 8. The learned trial Court after considering the evidence adduced and after hearing both the sides, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff vide the judgment and decree dated 24.06.1985. The learned trial Court declared title of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff but held that she was not entitled to khas possession. 9. 8. The learned trial Court after considering the evidence adduced and after hearing both the sides, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff vide the judgment and decree dated 24.06.1985. The learned trial Court declared title of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff but held that she was not entitled to khas possession. 9. Aggrieved by the finding that possession of the suit land was not delivered to the plaintiff and that she was not entitled to khas possession over the suit land though the title was decreed in favour of the plaintiff, she filed Title Appeal No. 29/1985 before the lower Appellate Court. 10. The lower Appellate Court by the judgment and decree dated 26.07.1996 allowed the appeal by decreeing possession of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff. 11. The defendant No. 1 is in appeal before this Court. 12. This Court by order dated 09.10.1996 while admitting the appeal, had framed the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act is applicable in the particular case and whether section 90 is correctly interpreted? 2. Whether gift is invalid and illegal for non-delivery of possession and whether mere recital in the gift deed amount to delivery of possession? 3. Whether the judgment and decree of the Court below is completely perverse and misconceived? 4. Whether the entire plaint is vague for want of cause of action? 5. Whether mere mutation in the revenue record can confer any right, title and possession? 13. During the pendency of the present appeal both the appellant and the respondent expired and they have been substituted by their legal heirs. 14. Issue Nos. 9(a) & (b) dealt with the gift deed and delivery of possession of the suit land. The trial Court decided the above two issues in the following manner:- Issue No. 9 (a) (b) Ex. 3 is the deed of gift alleged to have executed by Haji Iman Ali to the plaintiff on 09.10.50. Donor is dead several years back from today. So, he could not be examined by the plaintiff to show its execution. The plaintiff has failed to adduce the evidence of the other attesting witnesses. She has not shown any reason for their non-examination. Defendant has challenged execution of Ex.3 deed of gift. So, the execution of the deed of gift Ex. So, he could not be examined by the plaintiff to show its execution. The plaintiff has failed to adduce the evidence of the other attesting witnesses. She has not shown any reason for their non-examination. Defendant has challenged execution of Ex.3 deed of gift. So, the execution of the deed of gift Ex. 3 has not been proved by adducing evidence. The learned Advocate Mr. Jonab Ali appearing for the plaintiff has submitted that the deed of gift was executed 30 years ago and as such presumption can be drawn by the court u/s 90 of the Evidence Act regarding its execution. He has rightly pointed out it before the court. 14. Considering this fact I am of the view that the execution of the deed of gift by the donor late Haji Iman Ali may be presumed in absence of rebuttable evidence. 15. So, I hold that Haji Iman Ali had executed the deed of gift in favour of the plaintiff in respect of land measuring 3 bighas 4 kathas 18 lechas including the suit land. Regarding delivery of possession Ex. 3 shows that the donor had given delivery of the possession to the plaintiff. 16. P.W.1 Hussen Banu, has stated that the land was taken delivery by her husband Md. Insan Ali and her father. P.W.3 Md. Insan Ali has deposed that he took delivery of possession of the suit land including other land of the suit patta on behalf of his wife Hussen Banu PW 1. He has also deposed that his wife was not present at the time of delivery of possession of the land. This evidence goes to show that the plaintiff did not take delivery of possession of the suit land. 17. Ex. Ka shows that the donor late Haji Iman Ali had sold the suit land to defendant No. 1 Jahuruddin on 19.03.1968. From this it may be gathered that he did not part with the possession of the suit land although Ex. 3 was executed by him earlier. Ex. Chha is the sale deed executed by late Iman Ali in respect of half of the suit patta land in favour of Ahmed Ali, proforma defendant No. 2 (PW 2). From this it may be gathered that he did not part with the possession of the suit land although Ex. 3 was executed by him earlier. Ex. Chha is the sale deed executed by late Iman Ali in respect of half of the suit patta land in favour of Ahmed Ali, proforma defendant No. 2 (PW 2). Ahmed Ali has corroborated in his evidence that he had purchased his part of the suit patta land from late Haji Iman Ali and also took delivery of possession of it since its purchase. 18. From the above circumstances it may hold that late Haji Iman Ali did not deliver possession of the suit land along with other part of the suit land to the plaintiff. Moreover, P.W.2 Ahmed Ali, is a natural and disinterested witness. He has corroborated the evidence of D.W.1 Jahuruddin. 19. So, from their evidence it may be gathered safely that possession of the suit land was not delivered to the plaintiff in accordance with law. In Mohammedan law gift without delivery of possession, in case of immovable, is invalid. 20. Accordingly, I find and hold that the suit land was not delivered to the plaintiff in accordance with law. 15. As against this, the lower Appellate Court held as under:- 12. The learned Munisiff while deciding issue No. 9 (a) and (b) found that the deed of gift, Ext. 3 has been proved being a document of more than 30 years old and has been produced from proper custody. This deed of gift, I find was duly executed and registered on 09.10.1950 in respect of 3 bighas 4 kathas 18 lechas covered by annual patta No. 244 by Haji Iman Ali in favour of the plaintiff claiming her to be his daughter-in-law. The recital of Ext. 3 itself is to the effect that the donor had also given delivery of possession to donee, plaintiff. Here, however, regarding the delivery of possession, the evidence is that husband of plaintiff Iman Ali PW 3 along with her father took delivery of possession in her favour from the donor though she was absent at that time. From this the learned Munsiff concluded that she did not take delivery of possession of the suit land which is part of the alleged gifted land. From this the learned Munsiff concluded that she did not take delivery of possession of the suit land which is part of the alleged gifted land. The learned advocate for the respondent-defendant argued before me that as per Mohammedan law no writing or deed of gift is a necessary ingredient for a valid gift, but a sine-quo-non to be a valid Mohammedan gift is the delivery of possession by the donor to the donee. It is very much true but there is nothing in the Mohammedan law that the donee must be physically present at time of delivery of possession. In the present case it is sufficiently proved that on her behalf the delivery of possession as per the gift had been taken/accepted by not only her husband but also her father. In view of this, I find the learned Munsiff's conclusion is neither sound nor based on reasons and law. 13. The learned Advocate for the respondent/defendant has further assailed the gift and the gift deed on the following scores: (a) That there is no link between the suit dag with that referred in the gift deed Ext. 3; (b) that gift deed is not admissible in evidence as none of the attesting witnesses has been examined (c) that mutation of plaintiff cannot confer any title on her and (d) that the donor had mortgaged the suit land, redeemed it, and also sold out and delivered possession to respondent/defendant even after the purported gift deed. 14. The land covered by dag No. 244 special annual patta No. 25 measuring 3 bighas 4 kathas 18 lechas was the subject matter of gift as back in 1950 (vide Ext. 3, gift deed). This land was subsequently converted into dag No. 313 of AP No. 11. Ext. 1 is the copy of jamabondi issued in the name of the plaintiff. It reveals that the same extent of the land was covered by dag No. 313 and AP No. 11 which was subsequently converted into patta No. 58. Again Ext. 2 clearly shows that dag No. 244 was later converted into 313. Ext. 4 also clarify the same position. Therefore, I find no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent/defendants so far as score No. (a) above is concerned. Again Ext. 2 clearly shows that dag No. 244 was later converted into 313. Ext. 4 also clarify the same position. Therefore, I find no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent/defendants so far as score No. (a) above is concerned. So far as score No. (b) is concerned the law is very much clear that documents which are 30 years old if produced from person having proper custody may be presumed that the signature and every other part of such document, which purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person, is in that person's handwriting, and, in the case of a document executed or attested, that it was duly executed and attested by the person by whom it purports to be executed and attested. In this case the gift deed in original, Ext. 3 had been produced from the custody of the donee, plaintiff and therefore, it must be held that the same has been produced from proper custody. Therefore, the question of non-admissibility does not arise due to non-examination of any attesting witnesses of this deed which may be presumed in view of the provision of Section 90 of the Evidence Act. 15. It is true that mutation alone cannot confer any right or title over a piece of land but the fact of mutation also is one of the significant factors to show possession of the person concerned. It is also true that the donor Haji Iman Ali had executed one deed of mortgage in favour of one Giusuddin (Ext. Ja) in the year 1967, i.e., (19.04.1967). It must not be forgotten that at this stage also the gifted land was covered by annual patta. After executing and registering the gift deed in respect of the said land earlier in 1950 and delivering possession over it to the donee Haji Iman Ali was left with nothing of the land to be mortgaged and delivered possession to the mortgagee because of the simple reason that he had only the right of user over the land which also he had already parted with in favour of the plaintiff. On 27.05.1969 by order of the ASO the land was mutated in the name of the plaintiff on the strength of the gift deed. Again on 22.05.1974 the said annual patta was converted into periodic patta No. 58 in the name of the plaintiff. 16. On 27.05.1969 by order of the ASO the land was mutated in the name of the plaintiff on the strength of the gift deed. Again on 22.05.1974 the said annual patta was converted into periodic patta No. 58 in the name of the plaintiff. 16. It is only in 1968 that the donor Haji Iman Ali executed a sale deed in favour of the defendant No. 1 and proforma defendant No. 2. Legally viewed he could not have delivered possession to his purchaser which right he has already parted with in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, by any reasoning on the point of both facts and law it cannot be held that the defendant No. 1 and proforma defendant No. 2 could have obtained possessory benefit on the strength of sale deed executed by Haji Iman Ali in their favour. That was the reason why in the year 1974 the annual patta land was converted into periodic patta in favour of the plaintiff. 17. The ratio of the judgment (In re Jainur Ali reported in AIR 1951 Ass 20) speaks that the annual lease holder can only transfer the right to use the land and that transfer is valid. But the validity of the transfer shall continue till the annual lease is not cancelled or converted into a periodic one either in the name of annual lease holder or in the name of some body else. However, in case the annual patta is converted to a periodic one in favour of the transferee, he certainly shall get the valid title and his sale transaction would be a supporting document in his favour to obtain mutation to enjoy the possession of the land. 18. After conversion to PP in favour of the plaintiff, however, the plaintiff herself by executing the registered sale deed on 30.10.1976 sold out 1 bigha 4 kathas 19 lechas in favour of the proforma defendant No. 2 (vide Ext. 6). The rest half 1 bigha 4 kathas 19 lechas being still in possession of the principal defendants, i.e., the suit land must be held to be, due to the foregoing reason, under his unauthorised occupation for which the plaintiff is clearly entitled to recover khas possession. 6). The rest half 1 bigha 4 kathas 19 lechas being still in possession of the principal defendants, i.e., the suit land must be held to be, due to the foregoing reason, under his unauthorised occupation for which the plaintiff is clearly entitled to recover khas possession. The learned lower Court in my humble opinion, under the above findings of mine on both facts and law has misconceived and erred in its impugned judgment and order by refusing to pass a decree of khas possession in respect of the above suit land. 19. The learned Advocate for the respondent-defendants lastly submitted that before filing the suit afresh the cost of Rs.25/- awarded has not been paid in this case. So, this being a pre-condition for maintainability of the suit filed afresh after getting permission, the appellant/plaintiff cannot get any relief. It is true that cost awarded as a precondition must be complied with to avail of the benefit of the proceeding but at the same time it cannot also be treated as a clog to seal any remedy whatsoever. 20. In the result, aforesaid decision leads me to allow the appeal reversing the decision of the learned lower Court on the point of issue No. 9 (b) and rejection of plaintiffs' remedy by way of khas possession on contest, subject, however, to the payment of earlier cost of Rs.25/- awarded and remained unpaid to get the benefit of the judgment and decree. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, however, I quantity over and above another sum of Rs.50/- only for the cost of this proceeding to be paid by the appellant/plaintiff to the respondent/defendants. Draw up decree accordingly and send down the called for the records with a copy of this judgment and decree to the learned lower Court forthwith. 16. I have perused the judgments of both the Courts below as well as the relevant record. 17. The view taken by the lower Appellate Court is a plausible view based on the evidence on record. At this stage, it is also to be noted that the defendant did not challenge the finding of the trial Court as regards title of the plaintiff over the suit land. That being the position, the finding that the plaintiff has title over the suit land has attained finality. At this stage, it is also to be noted that the defendant did not challenge the finding of the trial Court as regards title of the plaintiff over the suit land. That being the position, the finding that the plaintiff has title over the suit land has attained finality. The decision on the issue of possession, therefore, has to be understood and judged in that context. On a close scrutiny of the appellate judgment, I find that the finding of possession has been arrived at on due appreciation of the evidence, which cannot be termed as perverse. 18. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any error or infirmity in the view taken by the lower Appellate Court. Appellant could not persuade this Court to take a contrary view in the matter. That being the position, the finding of the lower Appellate Court is hereby up held. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law as framed are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. 19. Consequently, this second appeal stands dismissed but without any order as to cost. Registry to prepare the decree and send down the LCR.