MOHAMMED HANEEF Vs. RAMLAKHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The substantial question of law involved, formulated and to be answered in this second appeal preferred by the appellant/plaintiff states as under :-

(2.) Suit property was originally held by plaintiff's father namely late Habeeb Miyan. It is the case of the plaintiff that his father gifted the suit property to him by a gift deed dated 15/01/1955 (Exhibit P/1) when he was a minor through her mother Jainab Bibi and since then he is in possession of the suit property by cultivating the same and his other brothers namely Mohammed Basheer and Allaudin, born out of the wedlock of Habeeb Miyan with his second wife, were residing separately. In the month of May, 1986, plaintiff came to know that defendants have got their names mutated in the revenue records on the basis of sale deed dated 22/12/67 (Exhibit D1A) allegedly executed by plaintiff's brother in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 which compelled the plaintiff to institute civil Suit No. 264A/04 for declaration of title and permanent injunction stating inter alia that alienation made by plaintiff's brother in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 by sale deed dated 22/12/67 (Exhibit D1A) is void and inoperative and not binding upon him, as such, he is entitled for decree as claimed.

(3.) Defendants No. 1 and 2 denied the plaint allegations by filing their written statement stating inter alia they have purchased the suit property from the brother of plaintiff after making payment of sale consideration of Rs. 2000/- and whole of the plaintiff's family knew about the sale and after execution of the sale deed dated 22/12/67, defendants are in possession of the suit property by cultivating the same and moreover, plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation and it deserves to be dismissed with cost(s).