J SYED AHMED BASHA Vs. MUMTAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What is challenged herein is the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Vridhachalam, made in A.S.No.36/91 wherein the judgment of dismissal by the trial Court in a suit for permanent injunction was reversed, and the suit was decreed.

(2.) Necessary facts for the disposal of this second appeal are as follows: The suit property, which was originally a vacant site, was purchased by one Syed Haider Sahib, the husband of the plaintiff, from out of his money on 6.3.1973 by a registered sale deed. The vendee under the document was directed to pay the mortgage amount under a mortgage, the pre-existing one, made by the vendor. After the purchase, the patta was transferred to the name of the husband of the plaintiff. The husband of the plaintiff executed a hippa namely a gift deed in favour of his wife, the plaintiff herein and subsequent to the same, the plaintiff raised constructions and paid taxes. The tenancy agreement was also made, and the plaintiff has been receiving the rental also. Thus, the plaintiff has been in continuous possession of the property as the owner of the same. While so, there was an attempted interference by the defendants stating that they have got title to the property. Hence, the suit.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendants stating that the plaintiff's husband was not the exclusive owner of the property; that when the property was purchased, they also made contributions according to their share namely 2/3rd; that apart from that, even at the time of the constructions also, they have contributed; that even assuming that a document was executed by the plaintiff's husband in favour of the plaintiff namely a gift deed, it was not valid; that even all the tenants, who are occupying the property, have entered into an agreement with the defendants only and neither with the plaintiff nor with her husband, and thus, the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief, since she was not the owner of the property; that the plaintiff was entitled to 1/3rd in the property and not the entire property, and hence, the suit was to be dismissed.