NAZMA KHATOON Vs. BIBI HALIMA KHATOON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present Second Appeal, filed under Section 100 of code of Civil Procedure 1908, judgment and decree passed by Additional Munsif, Gumla in T.S. No. 42 of 1981, Bibi Halima Khatoon Vs. Haji Mohiuddin and others dated 11.04.1991 as well as judgment dated 25.02.1997, passed by District Judge, Gumla in First Appeal being Title Appeal No. 25 of 1991, Hazi Mohiuddin & Others Vs. Bibi Halima Khatoon, are being assailed, whereby learned Munsif was pleased to decree the suit filed by the plaintiff- respondent declaring the plaintiff as owner in possession and further restraining the defendant not to realize/collect rent from the tenants of the properties in question. The First Appeal filed by the defendant was dismissed by the First Appellate Court.

(2.) Brief facts of the present case inter alia are that both the plaintiff and original defendant no. 1 are the daughter and son of Late Seikh Niyamat Mian. Plaintiff had filed original suit for declaring herself owner of the property and for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant not to realize / collect rent from the different tenants in occupation of different portions of property in question. The plaintiff is claiming title over the property in dispute vide two registered sale deeds dated 17.3.1958 and 25.6.1956 allegedly executed by the father of the parties Late Seikh Niyamat Mian. The further case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff has constructed building on the property after purchasing the same from her father and has let out the different portions of the property to the different tenants. The defendant being. real brother of the plaintiff was authorized by the plaintiff to collect the rent on her behalf from the tenants inducted by her. The defendant had been collecting rent on behalf of the plaintiff for quite long time but all of sudden he started claiming title over the property with dishonest intention, therefore, necessity arises to file suit for declaration and permanent injunction or in alternative for decree of possession against the defendant.

(3.) Defendant no. 1 has filed his written statement taking defence that sale deeds dated 17.3.1958 and 25.6.1956 allegedly executed by Seikh Niyamat Mian are fictitious and bogus documents and in fact were never executed by Seikh Niyamat Mian. His further defence is that he himself has inducted tenants in the different portions of the property and has been collecting rent as the owner and landlord thereof. His further defence is that the suit is barred by waiver, adverse possession and limitation.