FIRST APPEAL No. 346 OF 1996 Against the judgment dated 27.06.1996 and the decree signed on 09.07.1996 by Sri Jamuna Prasad Yadav, Subordinate Judge V, Hajipur(Vaishali) in Title Suit No. 93 of 1988. RAMJEE DAS ………. Plaintiff-Appellant Versus RAJENDRA RAI & ORS. ……… Defendants-Respondents ******** For the Plaintiff/Appellant: Mr. Monjeshwar Prasad Sinha, Advocate Mr. Suresh Chandra Prasad Sinha, Advocate Mr. Rajendra Kishore Prasad, Advocate Mr. Ratan Kishore Sinha, Advocate Mr. Madhukar Pandey, Advocate For the Defendants/Respondents : Mr. Shiva Nandan Rai, Sr. Advocate Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, Advocate Dated : 5th day of January, 2011 P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO J U D G M E N T The plaintiff has filed this First Appeal against the judgment dated 27.06.1996 and the decree following thereupon signed on 09.07.1996 by Sri Jamuna Prasad Yadav, the learned Subordinate Judge 5th, Hajipur(Vaishali) in title suit no. 93 of 1988 dismissing the plaintiff- appellant’s suit for declaration of title. (2) The plaintiff filed the aforesaid title suit for adjudication of the plaintiff’s title and want of title of the defendants in respect of Schedule-II land and further prayed that a decree for mesne profit for the past and the future be fixed and alternatively, prayed that a preliminary Mungeshwar Sahoo, J. -2- decree be passed for the land described in Schedule-I of the plaint regarding 4 katha 6 dhurs. (3) The plaintiff claimed the aforesaid relief alleging that Didar Bux was the common ancestor of the defendants, second set. He had four sons namely Md. Jan, Rabi Jan, Babu Jan and Md. Usman. Md. Jan had two wives. From the first wife, he had one son, Samsuddin and three daughters namely, Madina, Hasina and Nazmun Nisha. Bibi Sakina was the second wife of Md. Jan who was traceless. Rabi Jan had only a daughter namely, Jaimun Nisha. Babu Jan is defendant no. 8. Md. Usman had two wives, Sakina Khatoon and Sakila Khatoon. From them, he has two daughters and two sons who are defendant nos. 14,15,16 and 17. The name of wife of Samsuddin is Khodaiza Khatoon who is defendant no. 13. Samsuddin is defendant no. 9. Three sisters of Samsuddin are defendant nos. 10,11 and 12. The daughter of Rabi Jan is defendant no. 18. The defendant no. 19, Sarfuddin is not the son of Md. Jan from second wife. His mother is a Dushadhin by caste who was a labourer at the fruits shop of Md. Jan. She was kept by Md. Jan. (4) The further case of the plaintiff is that Md. Jan purchased 8 katha 12 dhurs lands in Khesra No. 45 in his name but actually his three brothers contributed equal share in the consideration money. However, the sale deed was made in the name of Md. Jan as he was the eldest brothers. All the members of four branches came in possession over the said land. After death of Md. Jan, his son, Samsuddin alone came in possession over 2 katha 3 dhurs i.e. 1/4th share in Khesra No. 45 and his three sisters relinquished their share as such, they never came in possession. On 5.6.1971, a memorandum of partition was executed dividing the said Khesra between the four branches. Samsuddin only signed for himself on the said -3- memorandum and the other sharers put their L.T.I. Subsequently, on 22.6.1975, a registered partition deed was affected and each of them got 1/4th share in Khata No. 59, Khesra No. 45. They kept Khesra No. 45 in joint possession which was orchard land. Subsequently, in the year 1986, an oral partition took place amongst the four branches. In that partition, from the extreme south, Jaimun Nisha got 2 katha 3 dhurs. Just north to her, Babu Jan got 2 katha 3 dhurs and just north to Babu Jan, Usman got his share 2 katha 3 dhurs and in the extreme north, Samsuddin got his share 2 katha 3 dhurs. (5) The further case is that Jaimun Nisha executed sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on 19.8.1987 with respect to her share measuring 2 katha 3 dhurs from the extreme south. Babu Jan also executed a sale deed dated 24.9.1987 for his share measuring 2 katha 3 dhurs. Accordingly, the plaintiff got possession over 4 katha 6 dhurs and he amalgamated these lands into a complete block and he got his name mutated in the office of the State Government. Md. Usman sold his share in favour of Sugia Devi and gave her possession over the purchased land. Samsuddin is still in possession on his share. However, the defendants, first set purchased the entire 8 katha 12 dhurs of Khesra No. 45 through 5 sale deeds from the heirs of Md. Jan. These sale deeds are illegal, void and without consideration. The second wife of Md. Jan namely, Sakina is also one of the executants of the sale deed but in fact, she is traceless since 20 years, therefore, some fake lady had impersonated her. On the basis of the said sale deeds, the defendants, first set never came in possession over the purchased land of the plaintiff and they did not acquire title on the basis of the said sale deeds. When the defendants, first set wanted to dispossess the plaintiff, under Section 144 Cr.P.C., a proceeding was started which was -4- converted into a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. During the pendency of the said proceeding, the defendants, first set dispossessed the plaintiff and Sugia Devi on 15.7.1988. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession over the land purchased by him. Sugia Devi has come in globe of the defendants, first set and therefore, she has been made defendant in the suit. The purchased land of the plaintiff has been described in Schedule- II and the description of the entire dispute has been described in Schedule-I of the plaint. In partition, the plaintiff is entitled to get 4 katha 6 dhurs. (6) It may be mentioned here that only defendant no. 1 out of the purchasers, appeared and filed contesting written statement. Besides taking various legal points, it was pleaded in the written statement that it is false to say that mother of Sarfuddin is a Dushadhin by caste. It may be mentioned here that Sakina and her son, Sarfuddin appeared and filed intervention application and were added as party-defendant in the Court below itself. The further defence is that the land of Khesra No. 45 measuring 8 katha 12 dhurs was acquired by Md. Jan alone out of his own earning and his brothers did not contribute anything. He alone came in possession after purchase and after his death, the Khesra No. 45 came in possession of Bibi Sakina, Sarfuddin, Samsuddin, Bibi Madina, Bibi Hasina and Bibi Nazmun Nisha. The memorandum of partition dated 5.6.1971 and the registered partition deed dated 22.6.1975 are fraudulent, illegal, inoperative and void. The partition of the year 1986 was also denied. The further defence is that the sale deed executed by Jaimun Nisha and Babu Jan in favour of the plaintiff are collusive, fraudulent and without consideration. On the basis of the sale deeds, the plaintiff never came in possession on 4 katha 6 dhurs. Md. Usman never sold his share in favour of Sugia Devi. This sale deed is also fraudulent, illegal and collusive. On -5- 16.9.1987, Samsuddin and his brother, Sarfuddin executed bymokasha Deed in lieu of dower debt in the name of their wives Khodaija Khatoon and Zubida Khatoon respectively. Both of them got possession over the land. On 30.3.1988, Bibi Sakina, Bibi Khodaija, Bibi Zubida, Madina, Hasina and Nazmun Nisha executed 3 sale deeds for 9 ½ decimals each of Khesra No. 45 in favour of Rampukar Rai, Shatrughan Rai and Rajendra Rai and his two brothers. On the same date, they also executed two separate sale deeds for 4 ¾ decimals of land in Khesra No. 45 in favour of Shanti Devi and Jayanti Devi. All the purchasers thereafter came in possession of the purchased land. These sale deeds are genuine and legal. All other allegations regarding taking possession is denied. It is said that from the date of purchase, the defendants are coming in possession. (7) The defendant nos. 8,14,15,16,17 and 18 have filed written statement supporting the plaintiff’s case, therefore, it is needless to reiterate the defence of these defendants. Sakina and her son, Sarfuddin filed another written statement contesting the suit in the same line as that of defendant no. 1. (8) On the basis of these pleadings, the learned Court below framed the following issues: (i) Is the suit as framed maintainable? (ii) Has the plaintiff any cause of action or right to sue? (iii) Is the suit barred by law of limitation estoppel, waiver and acquiescence? (iv) Is the suit properly valued and court fee paid sufficient? -6- (v) Is the plaintiff entitled to get decree for declaration of title and recover of possession over the disputed land? (vi) Is the plaintiff entitled to get decree for title as sought for? (vii) Is the plaintiff entitled to get a decree for partition as sought for? (viii) To what other relief or reliefs, if any, is the plaintiff entitled? (9) After trial, the learned Court below found that the plaintiff has not proved the fact that Md. Jan along with his brothers jointly purchased lands. The learned Court below found that the partition deed, Exhibit 3 and 4 are genuine but it will bind on the share of Samsuddin alone. However, the learned Court below dismissed the plaintiff’s suit for declaration on the ground that the plaintiff is claiming title over 4 katha 6 dhurs and therefore, they are not entitled for the same. The learned Court below also came to the conclusion that all heirs of Md. Jan are not parties in the suit who are necessary party and therefore, declined to grant relief regarding partition. (10) The learned counsel, Mr. Monjeshwar Prasad Sinha appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that although, the property was acquired in the name of Md. Jan, the other three brothers contributed equally and therefore, each brother had got 1/4th share in the suit property. The two brothers out of four brothers have sold their 1/4th share to the plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff has acquired title to the extent of 4 katha 6 dhurs and in fact, he amalgamated the said land and has made one block. He has also been mutated. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned Court below has wrongly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidences adduced by the plaintiff to prove that the property was never acquired exclusively by Md. Jan only and disbelieved the plaintiff’s -7- case wrongly. The learned counsel further submitted that the daughters of Md. Jan never claimed the property and therefore, they had relinquished their share. In such view of the matter, only Samsuddin came in possession after death of Md. Jan. The disputed property was acquired in the year 1943 and since then, the said property was in possession of the four brothers jointly. Earlier, the property was dealt with between the four brothers as joint family property and therefore, the finding of the learned Court below that the plaintiff failed to establish that the said land was acquired by four brothers is wrong. The learned counsel further submitted that no doubt, there is no presumption of jointness in Mohammedan family but, if there is conclusive evidence to prove that the members were living jointly and enjoying the property jointly and the entire family lives in commensality possessing the family property in common, presumption arises that property was the joint family acquisition. The learned counsel further submitted that in fact, the mother of Sarfuddin is not second wife of Md. Jan rather she is a Dushadhin by caste and Md. Sarfuddin is not the son of Md. Jan but the learned Court below has wrongly found the same in favour of the defendant. The learned counsel further submitted that in any view of the matter, when the learned Court below found that the partition deeds, Exhibit 3 and 4 executed by Md. Samsuddin are genuine and therefore, the learned Court below should have decreed the plaintiff’s suit for partition to the extent transferred by Samsuddin to the vendors of the plaintiff but wrongly, the learned Court below has dismissed the relief of partition also. The learned counsel further submitted that the plaintiff has also prescribed title by adverse possession over the land measuring 4 katha 6 dhurs but the defendants dispossessed him and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to -8- recover the possession. On these grounds, the learned counsel submitted that the impugned judgment and decree are unsustainable in the eye of law. (11) On the other hand, the learned senior counsel, Mr. Shivanandan Rai submitted that there is no presumption of jointness in the Mohammedan law. Admittedly, the property stands in the name of Md. Jan. The other brothers cannot claim that they are also co-owners of that property because Section 4 of the Benami Transactions(Prohibition) Act, 1988 prohibits the said claim. According to the learned counsel, the plaintiffs’ claim to that extent that three brothers also contributed equally in the purchase of disputed land is barred under Section 4 of the said Benami Transactions(Prohibition) Act. The learned counsel further submitted that the onus was upon the plaintiff to prove satisfactorily that he acquired title and possession over the suit property. So far Exhibit 3 and 4 i.e. the memorandum of partition and partition deed are concerned, those are not binding on the defendants because admittedly, after the death of Md. Jan, his sons and daughters and second wife inherited to property according to their share and therefore, the partition of the year 1971 or of the year 1975 or of the year 1986, without giving any share to the second wife and her son, Sarfuddin and three daughters of Md. Jan will be void ab-initio. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned Court below has wrongly found that memorandum of partition of the year 1971 and the registered partition deed of the year 1975, Exhibit 3 and 4 respectively are genuine document. In these partition deed also, the suit plot was never partitioned. So far relinquishment of the share by daughters of Md. Jan is concerned, the learned counsel submitted that they were in possession after death of Md. Jan and they in fact, sold their share in favour of the defendants so, it cannot be said that they relinquished their share. -9- (12) The learned counsel further submitted that in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the finding of the learned Court below that Exhibit 3 and 4 are genuine is liable to be set aside and for that, the defendants-respondents are not required to file cross-objection because the suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed entirely. On these grounds, the learned counsel submitted that the First Appeal is liable to be dismissed. (13) In view of the above rival contentions of the parties, the points arise for consideration in this First Appeal is as follows: (i) “Whether the suit property admittedly standing in the name of Md. Jan was self-acquired property of Md. Jan” or “whether his three brothers also contributed equally for acquisition of the said property” and “whether they had also equal share in the said property”? (ii) “Whether the plaintiff has acquired title on the basis of the two sale deeds executed by his vendors” and “whether the impugned judgment and decrees are sustainable in the eye of law”? (14) According to the plaintiff’s case, the suit property was acquired by the four brothers but the sale deed stands in the name of Md. Jan only, as he was eldest amongst the brothers. Subsequently, there was partition between Samsuddin and his three uncles and each of them got 1/4th share. The branch of Rabi Jan and Babu Jan sold their 1/4th share out of 8 katha 12 dhurs to the plaintiff by two sale deeds which have been marked as Exhibit-2 series. On the basis of these two sale deeds, the plaintiff came in possession over 4 katha 6 dhurs. On the contrary, the defendant’s case is that the property was self-acquired property of Md. Jan and his three brothers never contributed. On his death, his legal heirs came in possession on the entire suit property standing in the name of Md. Jan -10- and subsequently, they sold the entire property in favour of the defendants, first set. The defendants, first set on the basis of the five sale deeds, came in possession of the suit property. To prove their respective cases, the parties have adduced evidences oral as well as documentary. So far genealogy is concerned, the defendant’s case is that the second wife of Md. Jan is alive who had a son namely Sarfuddin. As stated above, subsequently, the second wife and her son, Sarfuddin filed an application and they were added as defendant in the suit. P.W. 1,2,3,4,6,9,11 to 16 are formal in nature. They have proved Exhibit 1, the rent receipt. Exhibit 2, the sale deed dated 19.8.1987 executed by Jaimun Nisha in favour of the plaintiff, Exhibit 2(a), the sale deed dated 24.9.1987 executed by Babu Jan in favour of plaintiff, Exhibit 5, the mortgage deed dated 30.1.1964 executed by Rabi Jan, Babu Jan, Samsuddin in favour of Ramashankar Sah regarding Plot No. 36. Exhibit 6-series are the legal notice. Exhibit 7, the sale deed dated 24.11.1962 executed by Samsuddin, Babu Jan, Rabi Jan and Md. Usman with regard to Khata No. 6, Plot No. 9. Exhibit 7(a), sale deed dated 12.10.1987 executed by wife of Md. Usman in favour of Sugia Devi. The other two sale deeds, Exhibit 7(b) and 7(c) dated 30.4.1981 are with regard to 6 katha 2 dhurs of Khata No. 59/20 executed by Babu Jan and Md. Usman in favour of Tulsi Rai and further executed by Bibi Jaimun Nisha in favour of Praman Rai with regard to 1 katha 3 dhurs of Khata No. 59/55, Plot No. 82/31, Exhibit 7(d), the sale deed dated 6.12.1986 executed by Samsuddin to Praman Rai for the lands of Khata No. 59, Plot No. 82. (15) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that although, these sale deeds are not related to the suit property but by the same sale deeds, these properties were acquired in the name of Md. Jan and in none of these transfer deeds, Sarfuddin joined as transferor because he -11- was not the son of Md. Jan through his second wife. The learned counsel submitted that Exhibit 7 was executed by Samsuddin and three brothers of Md. Jan and likewise, Exhibit 7(d) was executed only by Samsuddin. Had Sarfuddin been son of Md. Jan he should have joined in these sale deeds, so far this submission is concerned, in my opinion, on this ground alone that because he had not joined in the various sale deeds, there cannot be any presumption that he is not the son of Md. Jan. It may be mentioned here that mother of Sarfuddin deposed as special witness in this case. The second wife and her son, Sarfuddin had been added party-defendant in this case. They are also executants in the sale deeds in favour of the defendants, first set. Therefore, the legal heirs of Md. Jan admitted that Sakina is second wife and her son, Sarfuddin as son of Md. Jan. Their admission about the relationship of Sakina and Sarfuddin with Md. Jan is against their interest because on this admission, their share is decreased. Moreover, the evidence of the defendant and Sakina, who have deposed as D.W. 16 and special witness have stated that Sakina is the second wife of Md. Jan. D.W. 15, Samsuddin who is son of Md. Jan has also stated about the relationship. In my opinion, their evidences are admissible under Section 50 of the Evidence Act. (16) So far merit is concerned, the plaintiff has examined P.W. 5,7,8 and P.W. 10, the plaintiff himself. P.W. 5 has stated about possession of the plaintiff. According to him, the defendant no. 1 dispossessed the plaintiff about 7 years ago. He has also stated that the defendant no. 1 dispossessed Sugia Devi. He has further stated that since he gained sense, he is seeing the possession of Rabi Jan and after him, the possession of the plaintiff till he was dispossessed by defendant no. 1. Such is the evidence of P.W. 7 and P.W. 8. P.W. 8 is son-in-law of Rabi Jan, one -12- of the vendors of plaintiff. He has stated that his father-in-law and three brothers were in possession of the suit property measuring 8 katha 12 dhurs. Md. Jan had no son named Sarfuddin. After death of Md. Jan in the year 1970, there was oral partition but the suit plot was kept joint. Subsequently, in the year 1975, there was registered partition. P.W. 10, the plaintiff himself has fully reiterated the case made out in the plaint. (17) It is well settled principles of law that personal law of Muslims does not recognize the system of joint holdings as is common amongst Hindus. If the property is standing in the name of a member of Muslim family it cannot automatically be said to be for the benefit of the family. Moreover, in the present case, that is not the case of the plaintiff that the property was acquired out of the surplus family assets. Here the acquisition in the name of Md. Jan is not traceable to surplus family assets or funds from and out of which, the property could have been purchased. In the present case, the case of the plaintiff is that the property was acquired in the name of Md. Jan and his three brothers also contributed equally. Except this statement in the pleading and evidence, there is no other evidence. What was the mode of payment of the proportionate consideration amount, it was for the plaintiff to have proved that the members were living jointly but in the present case, that is not the case of the plaintiff. From perusal of the pleading of the plaintiff, it appears that the case is that, the brothers were residing outside who were in service and Md. Jan was fruit seller. Therefore, there is no pleading of living jointly and commensality possessing the suit property. The witnesses examined, as discussed above on behalf of the plaintiff, have only stated possession of the brothers of Md. Jan over 2 katha 3 dhurs. -13- (18) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that if the property was not acquired by four brothers, then no partition deed could have been executed and registered. To prove partition between Samsuddin and his three uncles, the plaintiff has proved Exhibits 3 and 4. From perusal of these Exhibits, it appears that this suit property was never partitioned between the four brothers. It will not out of place to mention here that the case of the plaintiff is that by these deeds, the suit property was partitioned and the brothers came into possession with regard to their 1/4th share. So far this case is concerned, admittedly, three daughters of Md. Jan are not party to these deeds. The second wife of Md. Jan and the second son, Md. Sarfuddin is also not party to these deeds. So far the case of the plaintiff that the daughters relinquished their share is concerned also, I find no force because the daughters have executed the sale deed in favour of the defendants asserting their right, title and possession. The sale deed in the name of Md. Jan, acquired in the year 1943 has been produced by the defendants has been marked as Exhibit B/5 which is dated 14.10.1943. There is no averment made in the sale deed that the other brothers of