SUJAYATHI NULUKU NAGABAYAMMA Vs. NANDIPATI SATYANARAYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiff, who is the appellant, had filed the suit for a declaration of his title to the suit property and for recovery of possession thereof together with past and further damages for use and occupation. The two Courts below dismissed the suit.

(2.) One Abu Baker was the owner of the suit property, he having obtained the same under a partition deed dated 15-4-1937. On 7-10-1938 under Ex. B-65 he executed a gift deed of the suit property which is a pucca building and some site in favour of his minor son (2nd defendant) represent by a guardian, who is the maternal grandmother of the minor. On that date, the 1st defendant in the suit was a tenant of the building. On 17-5-1955, Abu Baker had executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff under Ex. A-1 notwithstanding the gift of the property in favour of his minor son under Ex. B-65. Four years later on 4-3-1959 under Ex. B-2, the suit property was sold by the donee (2nd defendant) in favour of the 3rd defendant. The plaintiff filed the suit impleading the 1st defendant, the tenant and 2nd defendant, the donee under Ex. B-65 and 3rd defendant, a purchaser from the 2nd defendant, claiming the reliefs of declaration of his title and for recovery of possession with dast and further damages for use and occupation.

(3.) If Ex. B. 65 gift deed is valid according to law, Abu Baker, had no title to the property when he purported to sell it to the plaintiff under Ex. A-1. If, on the other hand, the gift is invalid according to the Mahomadan Law as the donor and donee are Muslims, then the 3rd defendant, who came to purchase the property from the 2nd defendant subsequent to the sale in favour of the plaintiff by Abu Baker, would not be entitled to the suit property. The main question, therefore, turns, upon the validity of the gift deed. The appellant contended that the gift deed Ex. B-65 is invalid according to Muslim Law.