MEHDI HASAN Vs. RAM KER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's second appeal who has lost in both the courts below.

(2.) Plaintiff Mehdi Hasan brought a suit for cancellation of a sale deed dated May 13, 1966 by which one Smt. Khatibunnisa transferred plots Nos. 226-Ka and 226-Kha with a total area of 1.451 acres to defendant-respondent Ram Ker for a sum of Rs. 2500/-. The case of the plaintiff was that Khatibunnisa was the widow of his brother Abbas. The share of Abbas in the property was inherited by the widow. The widow brought a suit in the year 1960 (being suit No. 183 of 1960) against the plaintiff for an injunction restraining him from interfering with her possession in the share in the plots inherited by her as a widow. On July, 18, 1960 according to the plaintiff, a compromise was entered into between the widow and himself under which the widow accepted the stipulation of having life interest alone in the share inherited by her in lieu of payment of some amount. This compromise is Exhibit 2 on the record. Later, during proceedings under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. the parties again entered into a copromise on February 13, 1962 while the matter was pending before the Consolidation Officer. Under this compromise (Ext. 3 on the record) it was agreed between them that Khatibunnisa would have only 1/4th share (instead of 1/2) in the property which was hitherto owned by the plaintiff and his brother: It was also agreed that she would be entitled to be maintained by the plaintiff from out of the income of the property but she would have no right to transfer it. It was alleged that in spite of the agreement contained in the aforesaid compromise on the basis whereof final orders were passed in consolidation proceedings. Khatibunnisa executed a sale deed in favour of the defendant-respondent on May 13, 1966 which is Exhibit A. I. By this deed, as noticed earlier, she purported to transfer to the defendant the two plots for a sum of Rs. 2500/-. These two plots represented half share in the entire property.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendant respondent mainly on the ground that after the death of her husband, Khatibunnisa inherited his share as bhumidhar of one plot and as sirdar of the other. Bhumidhari Sanad was obtained for the plot of which Khatibunnisa was the sirdar. Thereafter, the impugned sale deed was executed for consideration. The name of Khatibunnisa had been recorded as the tenure-holder in the relevant revenue records. The plaintiff had no right in the share inherited by Khatibunnisa and was not, therefore entitled to seek the cancellation of the sale deed.