ISMAIL BEEVI Vs. SULAIKKAL BEEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a suit filed by the first respondent herein for a declaration of her title to the suit property and for a permanent injection restraining the appellants and respondents 2 and 3 herein from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of that property. The first appellant herein (the first defendant) is the mother-in-law of the first respondent herein and the second appellant and respondents 2 and 3 are the sons of the first appellant.

(2.) THE allegations in the plaint are that the suit property originally belonged absolutely to the first appellant (first defendant ). Sometime before the marriage of the first respondent with the son of the first appellant, first appellant executed a gift deed, Ex. A. 1, D/- 1-6-1955 in her favour with a direction that the first respondent (daughter-in-law) should discharge the debts to the extent of Rs. 700 and that after the marriage she would be entitled absolutely to the suit property. Accordingly, the marriage took place with the son of the first appellant, who is not a party to the suit. The first respondent entered into possession of the suit property. Ever since her marriage, she has been in continuous and exclusive possession of the suit property, but allowed her mother-in-law and her husband's brothers to remain in the house. Taking advantage of the situation, they began to interfere with her possession and enjoyment, with the result she had to file the suit, out of which the second appeal has arisen, for declaration of title and injunction.

(3.) THE suit was resisted by the appellants and the second and third respondents (mother-in-law and her sons) that the suit property was originally purchased benami in the name of the first appellant (mother-in-law) the consideration for the sale price being contributed by her sons, that the gift deed was not acted upon, and, in any event, possession was not delivered to the first respondent (daughterin-law); on the other hand, they continued to be in possession of the suit property. They further contended that the gift deed was invalid and illegal under the mohamadan law, that it was not binding on them and that the first respondent had no title to the suit property. On these pleadings, the parties went to trial.