SHAKEELA BANO Vs. MOHD BISMIL SIRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants/defendants have preferred this appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 22-7-1993 passed by 2nd Additional District Judge Chhindwara in Regular Civil Appeal No. 30-A/1989 affirming the judgment and decree passed in favour of respondent by 3rd Civil Judge Class-II, Chhindwara in Civil Original Suit No. 537-A/88 vide, dated 24-12-1988.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the respondent/being minor through his next friend the mother Shakila Begum has filed a suit for declaration to hold the sale deed dated 11-1-1980 as null and void executed by Mohd. Yusuf the father of respondents in favour of the predecessor of the appellant Abdul Raheem and also for possession of the house the subject-matter of said deed situated on his agricultural land bearing survey No. 790, area 0.040 hector at village Junnardeo. As per averments of the plaint Abdul Nazir the grand father of the respondent being sole owner and Bhumiswami of the property had given the same to respondent by Bakshishnama dated 10-3-1977. The possession of the property was also delivered to him through his father as he was minor of one year only, since then he was remained in possession of it. Due to some family dispute and mental disease of the father of respondent, the mother of respondent along with respondent has left the village, subsequent to it for taking advantage of such situation, the predecessor of appellants Abdul Raheem fraudulently with conspiracy has got registered sale deed of the said house in his favour from Mohd. Yusuf vide dated 11-1-1980. Such document was never executed in the interest and welfare of the respondent. Even said Mohd. Yusuf was not authorised to execute the same on his behalf as he did not have any saleable right of it. Thus, the sale deed was ab initio void and did not confer any right or interest to the appellant in respect of the property of the respondent. Hence the transaction was not binding against the respondent. The requisite permission or sanction from the District Court in this regard has also not been taken, thus it was ab initio void. On coming to know about such transaction the suit was filed as said above.

(3.) In the written statement of the appellants it is contended that the aforesaid property is inherited by Mohd. Yusuf from his father as he was the only son, legal representative of Abdul Nazir. The same was purchased by said Abdul Reheem vide registered sale deed it could not be challenged by the respondent. The contention regarding mental disease of Mohd Yusuf and differences with his wife have been denied. The suit was filed by Mohd. Yusuf with the collusion of his wife only to borrow the money from the appellant by creating undue pressure on him. The appellant being bona fide purchaser of the property is entitled to protect his interest as owner and Bhumiswami. The said transaction had taken place with the consent of the respondent's mother but subsequently on enhancing the value and price of land the suit was filed with mala fide intention only to borrow some additional money from appellant. The same is not filed on proper valuation with proper Court-fees according to the prevalent market value of it. The suit has not been filed by competent person the natural guardian as such the suit is not maintainable.