Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

That the true facts are that, that the respondent No. 2 and his brother Mohd. Ali @ Nawab Sahab are the sons of late Mohammed Vazeer. Mohammed Ali is the real brother of Respondent No. 2, died issueless on 7-5-1981, after having suffered for about 7 or 8 years with paralysis. Due to sickness he was bedridden and died almost losing his mental balance.
That the Respondent No. 2 had an ancestral house at Village Temburni Tq. Nirmal which is at a distance of l 1/2 miles from Narsapur village. Late Mohammed Ali purchased house site at Narsapur and shifted the entire building material of the ancestral house situated at Temburni to Narsapur and constructed house bearing No. 6-11/6-19 at Narsapur.

9. The 1st respondent had examined himself as RW-3 and he had also examined RW-4 to RW-7 and on his behalf Exs.B-6 to B-16 and B-26 and B-27 were marked. Ex.B-6 is the registered gift deed dated 19-3-1981, Ex.B-7 is a certified copy of the registered sale deed, Ex.B-8 is a receipt of payment of house tax, Ex.B-9 is the property ownership certificate, Ex.B-10 is the tax receipt, Ex.B-11 is the death certificate, Ex.B-12 is the rental deed, Ex.B-13 is the certificate issued by Excise Sub-Inspector, Narsapur, Ex.B-14 is a certified copy of the voter's list, Ex.B-16 is the unregistered partition list, Ex.B-26 is the notice issued by Land Acquisition Officer to the 1st respondent and Ex.B-27 is the information letter issued by Excise Sub-Inspector, Narsapur. On behalf of the appellants, the 3rd respondent in the O.P. examined himself as RW-1 and RW-2 a relative of him was examined and Exs.B-1 to B-5 and B-17 to B-25 were marked. Ex.B-1 is the notice copy of Excise Superintendent, Adilabad. Ex.B-2 is to the reminder notice, Ex.B-3 is the Certificate issued by Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Narsapur, Ex.B-4 and Ex.B-5 are receipts, Ex.B-17 is a certified copy of the order of temporary injunction in I.A.No.59/84 in O.S.No.17/84 on the file of District Munsif, Nirmal. Exs.B-18 and B-19 are acknowledgements, Ex.B-20 is a receipt, Ex.B-21 is a certified copy of the Petition and affidavit in I.A.No.320/89 in O.S. No. 27/84. Ex.B-22 is a certified copy of the docket order in I.A.No.36/89 in O.S.No.27/84, Ex.B-23 is a certified copy of the docket order in O.S.No.27/84 on the file of District Munsif, Nirmal, Ex.B-24 is the notice to Fateh Ali issued by the Land Acquisition Officer, Ex.B-25 is another notice issued by Land Acquisition Officer to Fateh Ali:

14. The house in dispute, H.No.6-90, corresponding to old H.No.6-11, at Narsapur, submerged in Sriramsagar Project and relating to which compensation amount of Rs. 61,538-33 ps. is lying in deposit, stood registered in the name of Mohd. Ali in the Gram Panchayat records and Mohd. Ali died on 7-5-1981 without any issues and his wife also predeceased him. Fateh Ali, who is no more, is the blood brother of the said deceased Mohd. Ali and the appellants are the sons, daughters and the wife of the said Fateh Ali. The 1st respondent -M.A. Aleem, is the daughter's son of Beejan Bee who was the sister-in-law of the deceased Mohd. Ali. The claim of the 1st respondent in nutshell is that his mother was brought up by Mohd. Ali as his own daughter and out of love and affection and in recognition of the Services rendered by him during his old age, Mohd. Ali gifted the said house. The 1st respondent had examined himself as RW-3. RW-3 had deposed all the particulars and all the facts and circumstances under which the gift was made by Mohd.Ali. RW-4 also had supported the case of RW-3 in toto giving all the particulars and details in relation to the gift and he is the second attesting witness to Ex.B-6 and no doubt he is the relative of both MohdAli and also the mother of the 1st respondent. Apart from the evidence of RW-3 and RW-4, the scribe of Ex.B-6 was examined as RW.6. RW-7 is yet another witness who had supported the case of the 1st respondent. RW-5 was examined to establish that a portion of the house was let out by the 1st respondent. Apart from the oral evidence, Ex.B-6 - original gift deed dated 19-3-1981, was marked. Ex.B-7 certified copy of the registered sale deed, Ex.B-8-receipt of payment of house tax, Ex.B-9 - property ownership certificate, Ex.B-10 - tax receipt, Ex.B-11 - death certificate, Ex.B-12- rental deed, Ex.B-13 -certificate issued by Excise Sub-Inspector, Narsapur, Exs.B-14 and Ex.B-15 - voters list, Ex.B-16 - unregistered partition list and Ex.B-26 and Ex.B-27 - notice issued by Land Acquisition Officer to M.A.Aleem, and information letter issued by the Excise Sub-Inspector, Narsapur, also had been marked. As against this evidence, on behalf of the appellants, RW-1 and RW-2 were examined and the documents Exs.B-1 to B-5 and Exs.B-17 to B-25 were marked. Ex.B-1 is the notice copy to the Excise Superintendent, Adilabad, Ex.B-2 is the reminder notice, Ex.B-3 is the certificate issued by Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Narsapur, Exs.B-4 and B-5 are the receipts, Ex.B-17 is a certified copy of the temporary injunction order in I.A.No.59/84 in O.S.No.17/84 on the file of District Munsif, Nirmal. Ex.B-18 and Ex. B-19 are acknowledgements, Ex.B-20 is yet another receipt, Ex.B-21, Ex.B-22 and Ex.B-23 are the certified copies of the petition and affidavit in I.A. No. 320/89 and certified copy of the docket order in I.A.No.36/89 and certified copy of the docket order in O.S. No .27/84 respectively. Ex.B-24 and Ex.B-25 are notices issued by the Land Acquisition Officer to Fateh Ali.

In Kochu Ahammed Pillai v. Pathummal and Ors., , the validity of the gift under Muslim Law and further condition in the gift deed to the effect that after the death of the donee another person to get the suit property, had been well discussed.

16. In view of the legal position referred to supra, now the evidence on record may have to be scanned while judging the validity of the gift in dispute. It is not in controversy that in the absence of the gift the appellants would have been entitled to the compensation. It is no doubt true that in the claim Statement specifically a dispute was not raised denying the validity qf the gift, but the stand taken by the appellants clearly is evident and the parties had adduced the evidence only on those lines. In the claim Statement of the appellants, it was stated that Mohd. Ali died issueless and he had suffered from paralysis for about 7 or 8 years and due to sickness Mohd. Ali was bedridden and died almost without mental balance, and the respondent No. 2 had "an ancestral house at Village Temburni, - and Late Mohammed Ali purchased house site at Narsapur and shifted the entire building material of the ancestral house situated at Temburni to Narsapur and constructed a house at Narsapur. It was also stated that the house was let out to the Excise Sub-Inspector and he had vacated the same on notice issued by them. The 3rd respondent in the O.P. had examined himself as RW-1 and one Mohd. Nahimuddin was examined as RW-2. RW-1 no doubt had explained his case in detail. Ex.B-16 - unregistered partition list between the brothers, was marked to show that there was partition between these brothers. RW-1 no doubt deposed that his father Fateh Ali and Mohd. Ali together had leased out the house to the Excise Department. Ex.B-1 is the office copy of the legal notice dated 23-11-1986 addressed to the Excise Superintendent, at Adilabad with a copy to the Commissioner of Excise, at Hyderabad. Ex.B-2 is the reminder. These documents do not throw much light on the validity of the gift as such. Apart from the evidence of RW-1, RW-2 - a relative of RW-1, also was examined and his evidence is general in nature. In fact, the learned Subordinate Judge, Nirmal had recorded findings in detail while appreciating both the oral and documentary evidence in this regard at paras 22 to 24 of the judgment. As against this evidence, the evidence let in by the 1st respondent is that he examined himself as RW-3. RW-3 had deposed in detail about his case. No doubt, Ex.B-16-memorandum of partition between Mohd. Ali and Fateh Ali, was marked, subject to objection. In the Chief Examination, RW-3 had deposed as follows: