SMT. HAJARABI Vs. RAFT ALIAS RAFIKODDIN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiffs appeal against the judgment and decree dated 27-11-1996 passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Mr. S.N. Navalgund), Jamakhandi, in U.S. No. 23 of 1991 dismissing the plaintiffs suit for the relief of declaration and possession.

(2.) The plaintiff claimed the decree on the basis of title. The plaintiff alleged as per the plaint allegations that the plaintiff's father Abdulgafar Danakari died on 8-8-1983 leaving behind him his widow Mahibobi and his daughter Hijarabi i.e., the present plaintiff. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiffs mother Mahibobi died on 30-8-1990. Abdulgafar and his widow did not leave any male issues. The plaintiff claimed herself to be the only daughter of her parents. According to the plaintiff, Abdulgafar left lot of immoveable properties. The plaintiff claimed her title to the property in dispute on the basis of herself being the sole heir of her deceased parents viz., her father having died on 8-8-1983 and the mother died on 30-8-1990. The plaintiff alleged that on the basis of the mutation dated 31-3-1980, which defendants 1 and 2 got in their names made in the revenue records, by setting up some so called gift deed of the suit schedule property in their favour and on that basis they are setting up title. The plaintiff alleged in the plaint that there was no such gift deed and if there was any such gift deed, it is null and void, as no prior permission was obtained from the Competent Authority under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The plaintiff denied that defendants 1 and 2 to be the brothers of late Abdulgafar. The plaintiff alleged that defendants 1 and 2 asserted their title on the basis of the alleged gift deed. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendants were trying to enter into the agreement to sell the said land to cause loss to the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff had filed the suit for declaration and possession holding and declaring that the plaintiff to be the owner of the suit schedule land, as well as holding that defendants 1 and 2 had no title to the suit schedule property/land.

(3.) The defendants filed the written statement and took a plea that during his lifetime Abdulgafar transferred the suit property to defendants 1 and 2 by way of oral gift and delivered possession and that the property had been mutated in the name of the defendants-respondents. The defendants deny the plaintiffs theory of taking of fraudulent signatures on blank papers which has been set up by the plaintiff. The defendants asserted that under Mohamadan Law, oral gift is valid. The defendants took the plea that if one,. of the members is agriculturists, then there is no need to seek permission from the Competent Authority. The defendants deny the plaint allegations that the donor was in sound state of mind to make transfer. The defendants took the plea that the property in question had been transferred by the late Abdulgafar during his lifetime by way of gift in favour of the defendants, there is no question of succession to the property by the plaintiff. That the plaintiff had full knowledge of gift in favour of the defendants and the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree for possession as defendants are the absolute owners in possession under the gift deed. The plea of estoppel, under valuation, limitation and mis joinder of parties were also raised.