Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. According to the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, the suit property is northern 3 cents out of 9 cents. It has been enjoyed by the plaintiff's father with clear cut boundaries and that has also been mentioned in the suit schedule. The property has been purchased by plaintiff's father under Ex.A.1 on 14/2/1950. Subsequently, in 1967, one Khader Mohideen also claimed the property, by way of abundant caution, Ex.A.6 sale deed also has been executed. However, First Appellate Court had misconstrued it. Plaintiff produced his title deed. In 10 (1) Adangal extract Ex.A.3 plaintiff's name is mentioned. For the oral gift of Pathammal Beevi and the written gift of Abdul Khader, there is no evidence. The first defendant/D.W.1 himself admits that the property belongs to plaintiff's family. He also admits that the defendant has no title to the property. In Exs.B.3, B.4 and B.26 cases, plaintiff is not a party. Further, it is an injunction suit. It is not a suit on title. In the circumstances, Ex.B.3, B.4 and B.26 will not bind the plaintiff. Actually, the suit property is on the northern side. Exs.B.1, B.2 and B.5 to B.25 are all after suit. Further, they are not document of title. Further, they relates to the southern side of the property. Plaintiff had proved his title to the property. However, defendants have no documentary evidence to show that the property belongs to the Jamath. The property has been enjoyed by the plaintiff's father with definite boundary. The defendants were sued in their individual capacity since they interfered with the plaintiff's possession. Documents showing plaintiff's possession have been filed. In the circumstances, suing the plaintiff in representative capacity, filing a suit for recovery of possession or for partition will not arise. So, framing of the suit cannot be faulted. Exs.A.1 and A.6 are ancient documents. In view of Section 90 of the Evidence Act, their validity cannot be impeached now.

16. According to plaintiff, his father purchased the property, and at an oral partition, the suit property was allotted to his share.

17. However, according to the defendants, the total 9 cents in suit survey number belongs to Eervadi Lebbai Valavu Street Jamath. It includes the suit 3 cents also. 1st defendant Kadermeera Sahib, who is Muthawalli of the said Jamath also deposed as D.W.1.

18. Ex.A.1 is the title deed relied on by the plaintiff. It is a sale deed dated 14.02.1950, whereunder Peer Maideen sold undivided 3 cents to Mohamed Ibrahim Sahib. It is more than 30 years old. It is an Ancient Document. In view of Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 its execution now cannot be impeached. Yet, under Ex.A.1 conveyance of the property to Mohamed Ibrahim Sahib has to be established.

19. Ex.A.6 is a sale deed dated 19.12.1967. The same property mentioned in Ex.A.1 has been mentioned in Ex.A.6. Ex.A.6 is also an Ancient Document. Now, its execution also cannot be impeached. But, it must be established that under Ex.A.6 property was conveyed.

20. According to P.W.1, since during 1967 one Kadharmeera Sahib also claimed titled to 3 cents of property, he and his brother P.W.3 obtained Ex.A.6 sale deed from him.

21. The First Appellate Court referring to this Ex.A.6 has rightly stated that if under Ex.A.1 the property was conveyed to the plaintiff's father, for the very same property why Ex.A.6 has been executed. It had also rightly held that the plaintiff has not clarified Ex.A.1 Vs. Ex.A.6 as to plaintiff's title to the suit property.