1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.253 OF 2010. (RABBANIBEGUM ABDUL RASHID..VS..SK. MEHBOOB ABDUL GAFOOR & ANR.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. Rishikesh M. Mardikar, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. Rahul Ghuge, Advocate for Respondents. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 27, 2010. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The appellant is the original plaintiff. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. The plaintiff also sought a declaration that she was the absolute owner of the suit property. 3. It was the case of the plaintiff that Mehamoodabi, the first wife of Sheikh Mehboob, defendant No.1 had adopted the plaintiff as a child. Sheikh Mehboob had married Mehmoodabi in the year 1978. Lateron, the defendant No.1 Sheikh Mehboob married Abidabi. Mehmoodabi expired in the year 1997. Before her death she had executed a Will in the year 1997 making a bequest of the suit property admeasuring 8 x 30 feet in favour of the plaintiff. It was the case of the plaintiff that Sheikh Mehboob had executed a Mehernama in the year 1993 giving the suit property admeasuring 8 x 30 feet to Mehmoodabi. Since the year 1993, according to the plaintiff, Mehmoodabi became the owner of the suit property in terms of the Mehernama and then made a bequest of the suit property in the year 2 1993 in favour of the plaintiff. In the year 2000 since the defendants tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property, the suit was instituted. 4. The defendants denied the claim of the plaintiff and also denied the execution of the Mehernama in the year 1993. It was pleaded by the defendants that the Mehernama of the year 1993 was not valid and was not the Mehernama/ Dower as defined under the Mohammedan Law. The defendants pleaded that in the year 1999, the suit property was sold by defendant No.1 and his three brothers who were the joint owners of the suit property, in favour of defendant No.2 Abidabi. The defendants sought for the dismissal of the suit. 5. Both the Courts, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, came to a conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove that she became the owner of the suit property since 10.05.1996. The Courts held that the defendants succeeded in proving that the suit property was the joint property of defendant No.1 and his three brothers. The Courts held that the suit property was legally transferred by the defendant No.1 and his three brothers to the defendant No.2 by sale deed dated 15.10.1999. The Courts held that the plaintiff had not proved the Mehernama and hence, Mehmoodabi could not have executed a Will making the bequest of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff in the year 1996. 6. The findings recorded by both the Courts are clear findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record. While recording these findings of facts, the Courts have also considered the law on the subject of Meher/ Dower in this case. The Courts held that though the Mehernama allegedly gave the landed 3 property as Meher/ Dower to Mehmoodabi, the document did not show that any amount of 'Meher' or 'Dower' was fixed and the suit property was transferred in lieu of that dower. The Courts held that in this case, there was absolutely no evidence to show that the Meher was fixed. Moreover, the Courts held that the suit property was not absolutely owned by defendant No.1 Sheikh Mehmoob and it was jointly owned by Sheikh Mehboob and his three brothers. 7. On perusal of the Mehernama, which was produced in this Court by the learned counsel for the appellant, it is clear that it is not in the form of 'Meher'/ 'Dower'. This document clearly shows that, by the said document, the ownership rights in the suit property were transferred to Mehamoodabi. On a plain reading of the entire document dated 15.06.1993 it is clear that though, it recites as a Mehernama the same does not appear to be a Mehernama and appears to be a document by which the suit property was transferred to Mehamoodabi. The Courts rightly held that since the Meher/ Dower was not fixed in this case either at the time of the marriage or subsequently, the document dated 15.06.1993 cannot be a Mehernama. Since Mehamoodabi did not acquire any title to the suit property, in terms of the Mehernama dated 15.06.1993, the Courts held that she could not have made a bequest of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. Since no substantial question of law arises for consideration of this second appeal the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. 8. At this stage, Shri Mardikar, the learned counsel for the appellant seeks two months' time to vacate the suit premises and to make alternate arrangements. Shri Ghuge, the learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposes the prayer made by the learned 4 counsel for the appellant. However, since the appellant is held to be in possession of the suit property since long, the time of two months is granted to the appellant to vacate the suit premises. The appellant shall positively vacate the suit premises on or before 27th December, 2010 without seeking any further extension of time. JUDGE RR.