NOOR RAJAJI Vs. ILLAHI PASHA SAHEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I am constrained to confirm the order of remand passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, which is under challenge in this petition filed long back on 15-3-1982, bearing in mind the golden rule that justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done, which does not appear to have been done in this case by the authorities below.

(2.) THE dispute relates to agricultural lands Survey Nos. 187, 188 and 189 situated at Nilanga. These lands were ancestral property of one noor Balaji. The petitioner Noor Rajaji Deshmukh is the son of the said noor Balaji. Noor Balaji who was a Hindu by birth embraced Islam and became a Muslim and adopted the name Noor-UI-Huda sometime around 1935. On 1st Shawwal, 1344 Fasli (1935), he married with Noorunnisa begum. It appears that even after his conversion Noor Balaji continued to manage his property and mortgaged the lands in dispute to one Anant naik in June, 1935 for a period of two years. It appears that the said mortgage was redeemed and, thereafter, the said Noor Balaji executed and a registered sale deed and conveyed the three lands to his wife Noorunnisa begum under a registered sale deed dated 22nd September, 1937 (17 Aban, 1346 (F ). He purported to put Noorunnisa Begum in possession of the lands. Noor Balaji died in 1944.

(3.) ON 17-9-1949, the petitioner Noor Rajaji filed a civil suit against noorunnisa Begum Challenging the validity of the sale made in her favour by Noor Balaji in respect of the lands in dispute alleging that the said sale deed was nul and void and was not binding upon him, inasmuch as, Noor Balaji had no title left with him after his conversion, to sell the lands. The petitioner also applied for recovery of possession in that suit. That suit was contested by Noorunnisa Begum who amongst other grounds, pleaded adverse possession. That suit ended with a judgment given by this Court in Second Appeal No. 994 of 1968, decided on 27th/28th january, 1976. The High Court confirmed the decree passed by the trial Court in the suit by which the suit was decreed with a direction that if pasha Bagwan or any person was in possession of the suit lands as tenant, the plaintiff should be given symbolical possession of the suit lands. It may be mentioned that the suit lands were the same as are involved in the present dispute.