Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11.2 Appearing for the Plaintiff, at the outset, it is argued that the reappreciation of oral and documentary evidence is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of this case. The findings recorded are concurrent and conform to section 50 of the Evidence Act, and do not warrant re-appreciation under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Supporting the impugned judgments, it is argued by the Learned Senior Counsel that Khadijabee, was the owner of the suit land, who made an oral gift of 10 acres to the Plaintiff and later executed a memorandum of gift on 05.01.1989. Following her death, her husband, Abdul Basit  and the Plaintiff inherited the Suit Property at the first instance. After Abdul Basit’s death, the Plaintiff became the sole owner. This is supported by the testimony of PW-2, a cousin, and PW-3, a brother-in- law, who had intimate knowledge of the family and testified that the Plaintiff is Khadijabee’s daughter. The memorandum of gift (Ex. P-8) was proven by presenting the original document and through the testimony of attesting witnesses. The suit was filed on 28.10.2013, after the Defendants attempted to dispossess the Plaintiff on 14.10.2013. The suit is within the statutory limitation period. The oral gift’s essential conditions, including formal delivery of possession, were met, as confirmed by the deposition of PW-4, a neighbour. Furthermore, the alleged sale deeds were executed by an individual named Abdul Bas, not the deceased Abdul Basit. Even if Abdul Basit executed them, they would only be valid for his 1/4th share of the property.

Point III

22. The Plaintiff claims the status of the only daughter of Khadijabee and Abdul Basit. On 29.11.1990, Khadijabee died, and on 09.09.2001, Abdul Basit died. The suit was filed on 28.10.2013, i.e., nearly 23 years from the demise of Khadijabee and 12 years after the demise of Abdul Basit. The Defendants denied the status claimed by the Plaintiff as the only daughter and legal heir to Khadijabee and Abdul Basit. The Defendants contend that the lineage claimed by the plaintiff is particularly with respect to the Suit Property. The Trial Court, on the status of Plaintiff by referring to Section 50 of the Evidence Act and relying on the oral evidence of PWs 2 and 3, concludes that the Plaintiff is the daughter of Khadijabee and Abdul Basit. The High Court has broadly agreed with the view taken by the Trial Court.

28. Keeping in perspective the above principles, we appreciate the oral evidence relied on by the Plaintiff.

28.1 In chief examination, PW2, Mohammad Khayamulla, stated that he knew both Khadijabee and the Plaintiff, Syeda Arifa Parveen. That his mother and Khadijabee’s mother were first cousins, which is how he was related to both the Plaintiff and Khadijabee. He lived as a tenant in the same house as Khadijabee and the Plaintiff in Maqdumpura, and used to take the Plaintiff to school, confirming his knowledge that Khadijabee was her mother. Khadijabee, as the owner of Sy.No. 107, had only one daughter, the Plaintiff, and gifted her 10 acres out of love and affection on 05.12.1988. This oral gift was made in Khadijabee’s house in the presence of Khadijabee, the Plaintiff, Abdul Basit Sab, Abdul Raheman Sab, Mustaq Ahmed, and Ayub Ali. The credibility of this witness comes under serious scrutiny when the witness includes Mustaq Ahmed as one of the witnesses to the oral gift dated 05.12.1988. He noted that Khadijabee handed over possession of the  land and all agricultural implements to the Plaintiff and that he was also present when she executed the Memorandum of Gift on 05.01.1989. He stated that Khadijabee put her thumb impression on the document, which was also signed by the Plaintiff and two witnesses, Syed Abdul Basit and Md. Abdul Rahman, although he himself did not sign it, as he was told the two witnesses were sufficient. 28.2 In cross-examination, the witness states that his mother is the first cousin of Khadijabee's mother. He notes that Khadijabee made an oral gift of 10 acres of land to the Plaintiff out of love and affection and handed over possession. He also states that he was present at the time of the oral gift and that Khadijabee gave a plough and two cows to her daughter for cultivation, which symbolised the delivery of possession. He states that the gifted 10 acres of land was located on the southern side of the total land. He claimed to have seen Khadijabee’s Ration Card, which listed the Plaintiff as her daughter, and had also seen school documents regarding the same. He denied that the Plaintiff’s father and mother had no children. He denied that the names Abdul Basit and Abdul Bas were the same.

28.5 In his cross-examination, he holds that he is the brother of the Plaintiff’s husband. He had inquired about the Plaintiff's parentage with the Plaintiff and her relatives. He claimed that Abdul Basit gave the land to his daughter in 1989. He denied that Abdul Basit and his wife had no children and volunteered that they had a daughter. When asked if he had seen the Plaintiff’s documents to prove she was the daughter of Abdul Basit and Khadijabee, he replied that he knew it because he was a relative, and he denied not being their relative. He also denied the suggestion that the names Md. Abdul Rehman and M.A. Rehmansab were different, volunteering that they were the same person. He volunteered that he had not told his full name and age to the Plaintiff. He denied the suggestion that Abdul Basit was also known as Abdul Bas.