SARBUNNISHA Vs. RASOOL BEEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S.No.110 of 1996 on the file of the Additional District Court, Pondicherry at Karaikal, is the appellant. The plaintiff/ appellant filed the suit for partition. The suit was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff/ appellant as per the plaint is as follows: The suit property belonged to one Mohamed Sulthan, the father of the plaintiff/ appellant. Mohamed Sulthan had two wives and the plaintiff/ appellant is the daughter of Mohamed Sulthan through his 2nd wife. The 1st defendant is the widow of Mohamed Sulthan and she is the 2nd wife and the 2nd defendant is the son of the 1st defendant through Mohamed Sulthan. Mohamed Sulthan died on 7.2.1989 and during his life time he executed two registered settlement deeds dated 2.7.1975 bequeathing the 'A' schedule properties and 'B' schedule properties under those two settlement deeds. According to the plaintiff, the settlement deeds are not valid as per Mahomedan Law and Mohamed Sulthan retained the right of enjoyment of property settled under those settlement deeds with himself and he also sold certain items of properties covered under the settlement deeds to the defendants 3 to 8 and therefore the settlement deeds are not valid and the plaintiff is entitled to 7/24 share in the suit properties.

(3.) The 1st defendant and 2nd defendant filed the statement stating that the settlement deeds are valid and under the settlement deeds the 1st defendant became the absolute owner of the properties and neither the plaintiff nor the 2nd defendant is entitled to claim any share in those properties. It is also stated that the 1st defendant was put in possession of the properties under the settlement deeds and the rents and profits from the properties were received by Mohamed Sulthan only on behalf of the 1st defendant and not on his own account and in all those sale deeds the 1st defendant also joined her husband Mohamed Sulthan and that would also prove that the gift was valid and the 1st defendant also accepted the gift and she was also put in possession of the properties and the plaintiff therefore cannot claim any right over the same.