LAWS(APH)-2002-7-5

BEPARI SHAIK PEERAN Vs. KAMALAPURAM MAHABOOB BI

Decided On July 10, 2002
BEPARI SHAIK PEERAN Appellant
V/S
KAMALAPURAM MAHABOOB BI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful plaintiff in the Courts below is the appellant. The appellant/plaintiff instituted the suit O.S.No. 4 of 1985 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Proddatur for declaration of title relating to the plaint schedule property and for recovery of possession and also for future mesne profits and for costs of the suit. Since the 2nd defendant died, her legal representatives were brought on record as defendants 3 to 10 by an order in I.A.No. 233 of 1985, dated 16-8-1985.

(2.) On the strength of the respective pleadings of the parties, Issues were settled and the evidence of P.W. 1 to P.W. 6 and D.W. 1 to D.W. 4 had been recorded and Exs. A-1 to A-26 and Ex. B-1 were marked and the Court of first instance after recording evidence had arrived at a conclusion that the gift deed Ex. A-l does not satisfy the third ingredient of delivery of possession under the Muslim Law and hence the said document is not valid and after recording certain other findings also apart from this finding, dismissed the suit and aggrieved by the same the unsuccessful plaintiff had preferred A.S.No. 1 of 1987 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Proddatur and the said Appeal also was dismissed and aggrieved by the same the present Second Appeal is filed.

(3.) The real controversy in the present Appeal revolves around Ex.A-1 - a gift deed, executed by one Jahara Bi in favour of the appellant/plaintiff relating to the plaint schedule property. The principal question which had been argued elaborately by both the counsel is relating to the validity of Ex. A-l. Though in the Grounds of Appeal several questions had been raised and also shown as substantial questions of law, the only substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this Second Appeal is as follows: Whether the gift deed Ex. A-l executed by a Muslim is invalid merely because the third ingredient of delivery of possession is not satisfied though she had not retained any other rights over the domain?