[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Syed Mubeen Ali vs Ayesha Sultana And Others on 17 March, 2026
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A. No. 37 of 2020
Syed Mubeen Ali ... ... Appellant
Versus
Ayesha Sultana and others ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellant : Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, Advocate
(Through V.C.)
For the Respondents : Mr. Kanishka Deo,
A.C. to Mr. A.K. Das, Advocate
---
44/17.03.2026 The learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the earlier
suit filed by Syed Ishtiaque Ali and Dr Nutan Minz. @ Dr. Nutan Ali
who is the second wife of Syed Ishtiaque Ali and submits that Title
Suit No. 24 of 2004 was filed seeking a declaration of title only in
favour of Syed Ishtiaque Ali. The suit was dismissed and appeal was
allowed and the learned 1st appellate court in Title Appeal No. 23 of
2007 has held that the plaintiffs succeeded in establishing the fact that
they had perfected their title over the suit land by way of adverse
possession and as such they are entitled for a decree as prayed for. The
learned counsel submits that it was only Syed Ishtiaque Ali who had
prayed for a decree seeking declaration of his title and therefore the
decree arising out of Title Appeal No. 23 of 2007 is only in
connection with title of Ishtiaque Ali.
3. He submits that Dr Nutan Minz @ Dr. Nutan Ali was party in
the said suit in as much as Ishtiaque Ali had purchased the property in
the name of Dr Nutan Minz. @ Dr. Nutan Ali vide two registered sale
deeds dated 10.01.1985 from Jwala Prasad and Jwala Prasad had
obtained the property by virtue of registered deed dated 16.07.1960.
He submits that Nutan Minz had executed deed of
release/relinquishment on 20.05.1985 in favour of Syed Ishtiaque Ali.
4. The learned counsel submits that what was ultimately declared
in title Suit No. 24 of 2004 read with Title Appeal No. 23 of 2007 was
the adverse possession of Ishtiaque Ali and not the adverse possession
of Dr Nutan Minz. @ Dr. Nutan Ali.
5. He has relied upon the judgement passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court reported in (1996) 7 SCC 55 (Sankara Hali &
Sankara Instituted of Philosophy and Culture versus Kishori Lal
Goenka and Another) para no. 4 and 5 to submit that if the benamidar
executes relinquishment deed in favour of the person who actually got
the property then, the property would pass on to the actual owner of
the property.
6. The learned counsel has submitted that in the judgment reported
in (2014) 11 SCC 664 (Gowri versus Shanthi and Another) under
similar circumstances as involved in the present case, the relief was
granted. He submits that the present case is squarely covered by the
said judgment. He also submits that the facts of the said case be also
read but the ratio of the judgment has been given in paragraph 13 of
the judgment.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
present suit was filed seeking declaration of right, title and interest of
Nutan Minz and the registered deed of transfer dated 27.04.2010
(Exhibit-7) was also challenged to be null and void. The learned
counsel submits that the suit was ultimately dismissed. The learned
counsel submits that what survived was sale deed dated 27.04.2010
which was executed by Ishtiaque Ali in favour of defendant.
8. He has also submitted that the Nutan Minz was a licensee under
Ishtiaque Ali as she had already executed a relinquishment deed in
favour of Ishtiaque Ali and she herself stated that she was the
benamidar with respect to the property and this was done by virtue of
the registered deed of the year 1985 itself and consequently the title
was exclusively with Ishtiaque Ali who transferred the title in favour
of defendant no. 1 vide registered deed dated 27.04.2010.
Consequently, Nutan Minz became a licensee under defendant no. 1
and upon revocation of license, she was to be evicted for which a
counter-claim was filed, but the counter-claim has been dismissed.
9. He submits that though the Easement Act, 1882 does not apply,
but the principle of Easement Act does apply and for that purpose, the
learned counsel has submitted that Section 52 defines 'license" and
Section 61 deals with "revocation of license" and revocation of
license can be by action also. For that, he has referred to the
illustrations under Section 61 and has submitted that no written notice
as such is required.
10. The learned counsel has submitted that it has been stated by the
defendants that they revoked the license of Nutan Minz, still she did
not evict the property and consequently, the counter-claim was
required to be allowed.
11. The matter has remained inconclusive.
12. Post this case for further argument of the respondents on
19.03.2026 in the supplementary cause list.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Binit/Mukul
