Jharkhand High Court
Yakub Khalifa @ Gauri Khalifa vs Bibi Jaibun Nisa And Another on 20 January, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.A. No. 134 of 2023
Yakub Khalifa @ Gauri Khalifa ...Appellant/Defendant
Versus
Bibi Jaibun Nisa and another ... Respondents/Plaintiffs
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellant : Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate
: Mr. Manoj Kumar No. 2, Advocate
---
05/20.01.2025 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.
2. While giving the background the learned counsel has submitted
that the land originally belonged to one Jhumman Mian and after his
death , his son Md. Ismile came in possession of the property who sold
the property by two registered sale deeds in favour of Sk. Ahmed Ali
Ansari vide registered sale deed dated 15.05.1961 and 16.01.1964
which is exhibit-4 and exhibit 4/A. As per the case of the plaintiff, Sk.
Ahmed Ali Ansari gifted the property by way of registered deed of
gift to the daughter-in-law, who is the plaintiff no.1 before the Court.
He has submitted that at no point of time, the donor or the donee got
possession of the property. Learned counsel for the appellant has
submitted that the plaintiff no.1 was claiming property by virtue of
registered gift deed No. 1760 dated 16.02.1984 (Exhibit-B) but the gift
was not complete in terms of the Mohammedan Law as the property
was never delivered to the plaintiff no.1.
3. He has also submitted that the defendant was in possession of
the property for more than 60 years. It is submitted that the defendant
had perfected his title by way of adverse possession. He has also
submitted that the suit was barred by limitation as the defendant was
in possession of the property.
4. It is submitted that the suit was filed alleging that the defendant
was the tenant under Sk. Ahmed Ali Ansari who was the donor with
respect to the gift and accordingly the suit itself was not maintainable.
5. The learned counsel submits that the landlord-tenant
relationship has been ultimately held to be not established and as per
the finding of the learned Trial court as well as the appellate Court, the
defendant was found to be in permissive possession of the property.
6. The learned counsel has also submitted that it has come on
record that the defendant was issued basgit purcha in Misc. case no. 3
of 1994-95 by the Circle Officer but the Deputy Commissioner or the
Circle Officer were not made party in the proceedings. He has
submitted that the legality and validity of the basgit purcha has been
entered into by the learned Court while denying relief to the defendant
with respect to his right over the property on the basis of basgit purcha
by observing that the necessary procedure etc. for grant of basgit
purcha were not followed. The learned counsel submits that such a
proceeding deciding the legality and validity of issuance of basgit
purcha is barred under Section 18 of the Bihar Privileged Persons
Homestead Tenancy Act.
7. The learned counsel submits that considering the fact that the
defendant was in the possession of the property for a long period, the
judgment passed by both the courts have failed to consider that the
suit itself was barred by limitation. He submits that the point of
adverse possession has not been properly considered by both the
courts. The learned counsel submits that neither the gift was acted
upon nor the courts have properly considered the point of adverse
possession and therefore the substantial question of law arises in the
present case for consideration in spite of concurrent findings by both
the courts.
8. Arguments concluded.
9. Post this case for judgment day after tomorrow i.e. 22.01.2025
in the supplementary cause list.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Binit
