ABDUL RAHEEM Vs. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MAHABOOBNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question that arises in this appeal is whether the appellant hasgot exclusive title over the property. This is the appeal against the judgment of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Mahaboobnagar, in OP. No. 741 of 1977 on reference being made under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act (For Short 'The Act').

(2.) The appellant, Shaik AH and Shaik Mohiuddin are the sons of one Abdul Khader. It is the case of the appellant that Survey No. 30 consisting of Acs. 5.30 guntas and Survey No. 31 consisting of Acs. 2.05 guntas coming to a total extent of Acs. 7.35 guntas situated in Kalvakurthy was purchased by his father Abdul Khader and that at a partition between himself and his brothers (respondents 1 and 2 in OP. 741 of 1977), the property fell to his share under unregistered partion list and therey he has got exclusive title to the property. Therefore, he is entitled to the payment of the entire compensation. One Mohd Jahangir the fourth respondent before the Lower Court died pending proceedings in the lower court and respondents 4 to 6 his legal representatives have been brought on record and they claimed that Jahangir had exclusive title to the extent of Acs. 2.05 guntas in Survey No. 31. The court below held that Jahangir has not established that he has acquired title to ihe property in Survey No. 31 consisting of Acs. 2.05 guntas and that, therefore, the appellant and respondents 2 and 3 herein are entitled to payment of compensation in the ratio of 1:3. Assailing the legality thereof, the appeal has been filed.

(3.) The contention of Sri C. R. Pratap Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellant, is that the partition list clearly demarcates that the lands under acquisition had fallen to the share of the appellant and that, therefore, he has got exclusive title to the property. In the column relating to possession and title the name of the appellant has been entered in the Pahanipatrikas from the year 1973 and that, therefore, he has got exclusive title and the court has committed grievous error in not granting the amount to the appellant to the exclusion of respondents 2 and 3. I find no force in the contention. The doctrine of joint family status is inapplicable to the Muslim members under their personal law. The right, title and interest, if any, is to be extinguished only by execution and registration when the value of the land is more than Rs. 100/- under Section 17 read with section 49 of the Indian Registration Act. Then and then alone, right, title and interest in the land held by the person stands extinguished and stands vested in the other person. In this case, no registered partition deed has been executed and registered. Thereby the pre-existing right, title and interest as co-owners by the three brothers namely the appellant and respondents 2 and 3 has not been extinguished and their position is one of co-owners. The position of one co-owner enures to the benefit of another co-owner unless the one co- owner asserts his exclusive right, title and interest to the knowledge of the other co-owners and the other co-owners acquiesce to the same and continues to remain so for over 12 years from the date of the assertion of the title and then alone one co-owner acquires adverse title against the other co-owners. In this case, alleged partition list is of the year 1973 and the acquisition was made in the year 1977. Therefore, the doctrine of adverse possession does not come to the aid of the appellant. It is then contended that the partition deed Ex. B-7 clearly discloses the pre-existing partition of the properties between the parties. But this partition list would be applicable provided the doctrine of joint family status applicable to Hindu joint family applies to the Muslims. But the doctrine of Hindu joint family does not apply to the Muslims, and therefore, the partition list is not applicable to the parties in this case. The court below found that Jahangir, the fourth respondent therein was not entitled to the property and the appellant and the respondents 2 and 3 are entitled to the property in equal shares and accordingly granted compensation at the ratio of 1 : 3. The legal represents tives of Jahangir have not challenged the judgment of the court below by filing any appeal. Thereby it has become final. Thereby the appellant and the respondents 2 and 3 are entitled to the compensation in the ratio of 1 : 3 as co-owners. The appeal is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances without costs.