SAYYED SHABBIR Vs. KUESHID BEGUM KULSUM BEEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Judgment and Decree dt.22/6/2000 in O.S. No.95 of 1995 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali (for short "the trial court") by which the suit is decreed for recovery of possession and mesne profits, the defendants therein have preferred the present appeal.

(2.) For convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the suit.

(3.) The plaintiff filed a suit seeking recovery of possession and mesne profits. In the nutshell, the averments in the plaint are to the affect that, the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plant schedule property; on 27/8/1984 (in the plaint, the date of the gift deed is mistakenly mentioned as 27/8/1994), she executed a gift deed in respect of the plaint schedule property in favour of her son i.e. the first defendant, to facilitate him to take the loan from the Government. Even after the gift, the plaintiff continued in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by paying taxes. Among Muslims the gift becomes invalid if possession of property under gift deed is not delivered. The first defendant acquired no title to the plaint schedule property (a) On 15/1/1993 the first defendant executed a gift deed styled as Hiba-bil-iwaz in respect of plaint schedule property in favour of his sister i.e., the 2nd defendant. On 28/8/1994 the plaintiff got issued a registered notice to the first defendant through her advocate, but he did not give reply to the said notice. On 28/9/1994 the plaintiff executed a revocation deed cancelling the gift deed dt.27/8/1984. In the year 1994, the plaintiff authorized her second son to carry on the construction in the schedule site and provided the necessary funds as she has to go to Chandigarh. The building was got constructed by the second son. After the construction, the second defendant requested her brother Sayyad Shabbir allow her to reside in the scheduled house until the plaintiff arrived from Chandigarh, and she was permitted to reside therein. After returning from Chandigarh, the plaintiff required the second defendant to vacate and deliver possession of plaint schedule premises. But, she refused to vacate, setting up false claims to the same. The possession of the second defendant in respect of the plaint schedule property is illegal and she is a trespasser and she is liable to vacate and deliver the possession of the same.