M V RAHEMTHULLA Vs. S A AMANULLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legal representatives of the plaintiff are in appeal before us. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction. The plaintiff in his suit alleged that he has purchased the property in dispute by registered sale deed, dated 6.3.1978 from one Syed abubackkar. The plaintiff further alleged that after the execution of sale deed, he was put in possession and he started paying taxes to the Municipal Corporation. He also alleged that his name was mutated in the revenue record. It is at that stage, the defendants tried to interfere with his possession. The case of defendants-respondents is that Syed Abubackkar executed a settlement deed on 1.2.1967 in favour of his wife, defendant no. 2 and on the next date he went to Singapore. On 15.2.1967. Syed abubackkar executed a Power of Attorney in favour of his father and on the same day, the settlement deed was registered in India.

(2.) The trial court decreed the suit. However, the decree was set aside by the first Appellate court and the appeal preferred by defendants-respondents was allowed. The high Court affirmed the judgment of the first appellate Court. Against the said judgment, the legal representatives of the plaintiff is in appeal before us.

(3.) Learned Counsel argued that High Court has committed error in holding that no argument was advanced by the plaintiff on the plea that execution of settlement deed has not been proved before the trial court. Learned Counsel took us through the various documents which show that the question relating to the validity of settlement deed was raised before the Appellate Court as well as before the trial court. We have looked into the record and find that the trial court has framed the following issues: