FAKIRUDDIN AMIRUDDIN Vs. ABDUL HUSSEIN PEERBHOY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this suit the plaintiff prays for a declaration that a certain sale-deed of the 19 January 1904, whereby Noorbibi purported to convey certain immoveable property, situate at Ripon Road, to the defendant, is void; that the said deed might be set aside and the plaintiff declared the owner of the whole of the said property; and, further, that the defendant be ordered to reconvey the said proporty to the plaintiff and to deliver up possession. He also prays for an account of the rents of the said property since the 19 of January 1904.

(2.) The plaintiff is the son of one Amiruddin, who died in Bombay intestate on the 2 December, 1894, leaving him surviving as his heirs and legal representatives his widow Noorbibi and the plaintiff. Amiruddin's brother Tamuzuddin had predeceased him on the 18 day of October 1892. He also died intestate leaving as his heirs and legal representatives his widow Jenaboo and two daughters and his full brother Shaik Amiruddin. After the death of the latter, Noorbibi on behalf of herself and her minor son, the plaintiff, filed a suit, being suit No. 363 of 1895, against Jenaboo and her daughters for an account of the estate of Shaik Tumuzuddin. In that suit a consent decree was passed on the 30 March 1897, whereby it was declared that the said Noorbibi and the plaintiff as the heirs of Shaikh Amiruddin were entitled to a 5/24ths share in the estate of the said Tamuzuddin, and that in satisfaction of the said share they were entitled to a sum of Rs. 6,505. By that consent decree it was further ordered and declared that Jenaboo on behalf or herself and her daughters should convey the property belonging to the deceased Tamuzuddin situate at Ripon Road to the said Noorbibi on behalf of herself and the plaintiff, and that property was to be taken as being of the value of Rs. 4,000, and that in addition to that Noorbibi was to be paid on behalf of herself and the minor son a sum in cash of Rs. 2,505. In pursuance of that decree Jenaboo on the 20 November 1897 conveyed to Noorbibi on her own behalf and as guardian of her minor son, the plaintiff, the Ripon Road property; and by a release, dated 20 December 1897, Noorbibi acknowledged that the possession of the said Ripon Road property was duly given to her and that the paymerits directed by the decree, that is, the payment of the said sum of Rs. 2,505 had duly been made to her on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor son the plaintiff.

(3.) It appears that on the 19 January 1904 Noorbibi purported to convey this Ripon Road property on behalf of herself and the minor plaintiff to the defendant for the consideration of Rs. 7,000. The plaintiff claims that this conveyance is invalid and that he is entitled to be declared the sole owner of the property.