Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (1.38 seconds)
Salahuddin & Ors vs Razi Ahmad & Ors on 7 May, 2013 cites

Rukaiya Begum And Ors. vs Fazalur Rahman And Ors. on 14 May, 1997

34. Now, let us consider the decisions relied upon by the appellant. The appellant has relied upon 1997(2) PLJR 205(Rukaiya Begum & Ors. vs. Fazalur Rahman & Ors.). On the strength of this decision, the learned counsel submitted that there is no presumption of jointness and joint family business in Mohammedan and property acquired by one wife or Muslim person by registered sale deed cannot be presumed to be joint family property or it has been acquired benami in the name of the person in whose name the registered sale deed stand. This decision has been relied upon Patna High Court FA No.176 of 1976 dt.07-05-2013 27 regarding the property of Exhibit B/1 and B which are in the name of defendant no.1 and four brothers respectively. The plaintiff is not claiming any share in these properties. Her statement in the plaint is that the property covered under Exhibit B/1 is the property of defendant no.1 whereas the property covered under Exhibit B is the property of four brothers. However, the finding is contrary. Therefore, any finding recorded by the court below regarding this property and decree passed is against the brothers. It has been held that the property covered by Exhibit B is the acquired property of Haji Shafiullah. Therefore, four brothers could have been aggrieved by the said finding. How the plaintiff can challenge this finding and likewise, her statement is that the property under Exhibit B/1 is the property of defendant no.1 which has been held to be the self-acquired property of defendant no.1, in any case, so far this portion of the decree passed by the court below is not against the plaintiff. Therefore, in my opinion, the plaintiff cannot be said to be an aggrieved person. At her instance, in this appeal, it is not necessary to decide as to whether the property standing in the name of four brothers was acquired by Haji Shafiullah or it was the self-acquired property of four brothers. Two brothers are saying that it is the property acquired by the father. Defendant no.1 is saying that it is acquired by four brothers. Defendant no.1 did not challenge this part Patna High Court FA No.176 of 1976 dt.07-05-2013 28 of the decree. How the plaintiff can be allowed to challenge particularly when the said property has already been gifted by Haji Shafiullah. Even if it is held that it is the self-acquired property of four brothers, the plaintiff will have no share in the property. In my opinion, therefore, this question is only academic and has got no relevance for decision in this appeal.
Patna High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 8 - M Y Eqbal - Full Document
1   2 Next