Scribd
Upload
436 views4 pages

156 - Muhammad Sulaiman v. Sakina Bibi and Bad-Ullah (674-677)

- The document summarizes a legal case regarding ownership of a house in Cawnpore, India. - The original owner, Musammat Sakina, went on a pilgrimage to Mecca for 3 years and left her relative Bad-ullah in charge of the house. While she was gone, Bad-ullah had his name entered as the owner on municipal records and then sold the house. - When Musammat Sakina returned before the expiration of 6 years, she sued for recovery of possession. The courts found that Bad-ullah was not an "ostensible owner" as defined by law and therefore the sale was not binding on the original owner. Musammat Sakina was entitled to a

Uploaded by

gunjeet singh
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
436 views4 pages

156 - Muhammad Sulaiman v. Sakina Bibi and Bad-Ullah (674-677)

- The document summarizes a legal case regarding ownership of a house in Cawnpore, India. - The original owner, Musammat Sakina, went on a pilgrimage to Mecca for 3 years and left her relative Bad-ullah in charge of the house. While she was gone, Bad-ullah had his name entered as the owner on municipal records and then sold the house. - When Musammat Sakina returned before the expiration of 6 years, she sued for recovery of possession. The courts found that Bad-ullah was not an "ostensible owner" as defined by law and therefore the sale was not binding on the original owner. Musammat Sakina was entitled to a

Uploaded by

gunjeet singh
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

674 TUB INDIAN LAW REPORTS, [V O L. XLW.

1922 court but it does not find favour w ith iis. It is p erfectly clear
MAH-'r^jT" neither the Maharaja nor Aiiiar N ath was a tenant of
ii/jA m S the house in question, nor did they claim thi’oiigh K a m ji
Sahai w4io was the ten a n t; and, further, there was then no
SxKGitr tenancy. There can be no estoi^pel aga.inst them . T h e learn­
ed Subordinate Judge has found collusion betw een R a m ji
Sahai and Aniar N ath. On the facts as he has fou n d , there
was no collusion at all. In any circnm stances, the ordinary
doctrine which was laid down in Tadm an v. H en m an (1), that
tlin d persons not claim ing possession, of land under the tenant
a];e not estopped, has application, l-lie Ma,hara]a and A m ar
N ath, w ho are the sole appellants i.n this case, have every
right to put Surjan Singh to p roof o f his title. T h e y put him
to pi’oof of his title in the court below an,d there can be no
doubt as to the fact that he has been unable to establish^iw ,_
title. T he question o f the^ estoppel of E am ji Sahai is '’o f no
im portance in the decision of this ajvpeal, for lie has not
appealed. W e , therefore, decree this appeal and direct that
Sorjari Singh’ s suit against H is H ighness the M aharaja o f
Jaipnr and Pandit A niar Nath stand dismissed and w e direct
that Surjan Singh pay his ow n costs in tins appeal and tlie
costs of the Maharaja o f Jaipur ,and Pandit A m ar Nath in a]l
courts.
A ppeal d ecreed.

Before Mr. Justice Stuart and Mr. Justice Kan'kaiya Lai.


192-2 M UH AM M AD SITLAIMAl? (D efekbakt) d . S A K M A B IB I (PLAmTiPF) akb
May, 1'2. ; B A D -U L juAH: (DBPEm^MT).*
------------------Act No. I F 0/1S82 {Tra7isfer of Property Act), section 41—Ostensible owner—
Manacjcr left in charge of pro0rty the otoncr of which had gone on a
pilgrimage,
Piaiiititf, wlio of a house in. Cawupore, weut ori a
pilgrinsage to Mecca, leaYin^ charge of an agent. W hen the
plaintiff liarl .been absent about three years, the agent got his o\to name
entered on tlie Municipal ■register in place of the o-wner, and thereafter sold
ihc house as i i !3 own. Plaintiff returned before the expiration of six yerirs
: from her departm’e and sued for recovery of possession ;
Held that the vendor could not be considered as an “ ostensible owner ”
Tpithin the meaning of section 41 of tlie Transfer of Property Act, 1S8'2 and
the plaintiff wai? entitled to a decree. Jamna Das v. Uma Shankar (2}
Merwanfi Mnncherji Ca» a v. The Secretary of State for India in Oouncil (3)
And. Partap Chand v. Saiyida Bibi (4) referred to.
* Second Appeal No, 231 of 1921, from a decree of E . H . Ashworth,
District Judge of Cawnpore, dated the 20 th of December, 1920''"refgfsfiiff’'Eir
decree of Kashi Prasad, Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore, dated the 13th of
November, 1919.
(1) (1893) 2 Q. B ., 168.
(2) (1914) I. L . E ., 36 All., 308.
(8) 1915) 19 0. W . N ., 1056.
(4) (1901) r. L . E ., 23 All., 442.
VOL. S L IV .] ALLAHABAD SBPJES. , 675

T h e facts o f this case are fu lly set forth in the judgmeiat iQ.3-2
of the Court.
D r. S. M . Sulaiman and D r. Kailas N ath K a tju , for the
appellant. •*?.
M r. E . A . H oicard ami M r. 5 . S . O ’ (7o«or, for the
respondents.
S t u a r t and lumHAiYA L a l , J J . :— The dispute in this
appeal relates to a house situate in C aw npore city. T he
house belonged to M usam m at Sakina, the plaintiff respondent.
In the beginning of 1912 she w en t to M ecca , leaving the house
in charge of a relation o f hers named B ad-nllah. B efore
leaving for M ecca , she had executed a "will by virtue o f vvMch
she had bequeathed an interest in that house to B ad-ullah on
her death. A t B om b a y she g o t herself re-m arried to a person
nam ed N u r Jam al and w en t w ith him to M ecca w here she
stayed for tw o years. On her return she. w ent to D elh i w here
she stayed with her husband.
M earnvhile an application was m ade by B ad-ullah to the
M u nicipal B oard, C aw npore, on the 31st o f M a y , 1915 stating
that h e was not aware of the whereabouts o f M usam m at
Sakina w ho had gon e on p ilgrim a ge, nor certain w hether she
was dead or alive, and praying that the house m igh t he entered
in his nam e, as he was her only heh\ This application was
granted and the nam e o f B ad-ullah w^as entered in the M u n ici­
pal house-tax register in the place o f M usam m at Sakina. On
the 30th of Septem ber, 1917 he sold the house for E s. 2,500
to the defendant appellant, and the question for consideration
in this appeal is w hether the plaintiff is boun d by that sale.
T h e court o f first instance fou n d that the defendant appellant
had ta k e s reasonable care to ascertain the title o f B ad-ullah
taking a sale deed from h im and that he had acted in
good faith and purchased the house for valuable consideration.
T h e low er appellate court, h ow ever, held that B ad-ullah w m
not the ostensible ow n er of the house w ith th e express or im ­
plied consent o f M usam m at Sakina and the sale was n ot , t h e r e -:
fo re , bin din g on her. That fin din g is challenged here. Qn the
question as to w h eth er the defendant appellant h ad
inquiries before purchasing the p r o p e r t y t h e fl'nding '
o f the low er appellate court was that he had done s o , a n d :
stress IB laid on behalf o f the defehdant appeilant on that
finding as m ilitating against the d ecree: w h ich the lower
appellate court has passed in favour of the plaiutiff.
67() THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS, [V O L . X IIV .

1922 It appeiiTs from the statem ent of the defendant appellant


i>^ biiriself tliat he was aware that M iisam m at vSakina was-
"suLAiMAN originally the owner o f the disputed property. H e had as­
certained that fact w hen he exam hied the M unicipal h o u se -
Bakina Bjiu.
tax register. H ad he made a further inquiry, he w ould have
learnt that the name o f Bad-ullah was substituted in her place
by means of an application in w hich Bad-ullah had adm itted
that he was not aware w hether M usam m at Sakina was dead
or alive. M usam m at Sakina had been absent from Caw npore
for n ot more than six years. T h e defendant apjoellant states-
tliat he had made inquiries from certain neighbours and was
led by them to believe that Bad-ullah was the ow ner o f the
house, but that inquiry could hardly be treated as suffi.cient
in view of the fact that he kn ew that M usam m at Sakina was-
the original ow ner o f the honse and no satisfactory in form ation
was available as to whether she had actually died. T h e
presum ption of death could not have been m ade before the
lapse of seven years. B ad-ullah was only the m anager o f her
property, and, as pointed out in the case o f Jamna Das y . U7na
Shankar (1), the possession of a m anager cannot be treated
as sufficient evidence o f ostensible ow nership w ith the con sen t,
express or im plied, o f the real proprietor, w ithin the m eaning
of section 41 of the Transfer o f Property A ct. T h e entry of
tlie name of Bad-ullah in the house-tax I'egister was only made
for the purpose of assessment and collection of house-tax and
was not intended for registering title, and as their Lordsh ips
of the P rivy Gouncil say in M erw dnji Muriolierji Gama v. T h e
S ecreta ry: of S ta te:for Indm m GotmQU , such an en try is
not always enough to induce a person to think that the person
whose name was entered was the proprietor and had a right to
sell the XJi^operty w liicli was entered in his nam e. In Parta-p
C lm n d x, Saiyida Bihi (.S) a- Governm ent of&cial ow ning zam in-
dari property had caused that zamindari property to be record ­
ed in the revenue papers in the names of his you n g sons and
the latter subsequently sold portions of the property and'
m ortgaged others. The vendee and the m ortgagee had satisfied
themselves that the property had been recorded for some
years in the names o f the sons but had made
inquiries as to whether the property had really belonged to the-
sons or; not. I t was held by this Court tliat the transferee,.
: (1): (1914) I. L . E ., 36 All., 308.
:(:2) (1913) 19 C. \V. N ., 1056.
■ (3V {1901) I . li. E ., 23 A l l , U 2 .
V O L. X L I V .] ALLAHABAD SERIES. 677

tliongh acting in good faith, had not taken reasonable care to 1922
ascertain that the transferor had x^ower to m ake the transfer.
On the facts fou n d , it cannot, therefore, be said that the Suiaiiviak
inquiry anade by the defendant appellant was sufficient. bibs
fact w hat h e had already learnt was sufficient to put h im on
his guard and induce h im to make further inquiries before
taking a sale deed from a person w h o had practically got Ms
name entered in the M un icipal honse-tax register either under
som e m istaken n otion or b y fraud. T h e plaintiff appellant
explains in her statem ent that she w as under the im pression
that the rent of the house was bein g utilized in the repairs
o f a certain m osque, and no adverse inference can be drawn
from the fact of her having om itted to claim or realize rent
from the person w ho was in charge of the house w hilst she was
aw ay. W e do not consider that section 41 o f the Transfer
o f P rop erty A ct is applicable, and dismiss tliis appeal w ith
costs.
Appeal dismissed.

Before Mr. Justice Lindsay and Mr. Justice Kanhaiya Lai.


B A IJ N A T H and (P l a in t ip f s ) z'. M U H A M M A D iS M A IIi
(D efendant ).
Act No. XX of 1863 •(Religious. -Endowments Act), 'sections 3 and 7—
FoK-ers of coviniittee of mana-gement of religious endoiinnents-— Lease—
Renewal of lease in favour of another thehadar—Position of tenunt of
former the-kadar refusing to vacate.
It is competent to a committee appointed under tlie provisions of
sections 3 and 7 of the Beligioas Endowments Act, to grant leases of the
immovable property of tlie trast which such a committee represents, for a
period of five years.
W here one suck lease for five years had expired and a fresh lease for
a similar period had. been granted to another thekadar, it was JieZd that a
person ^vho was holding over on some kind of an arrangement -with the
former lessees ■\vas in the position of a mere trespasser, and it was hot
necessary for the new lessees to serve him with a formal notice of ejectment.
T h e facts o f this ca^je are fully set forth in the judgm ent
.o f the Court.
i)i\ SuTe-'iidra hhitli S en , D r. S . M\ Sidaiman w id
Balesh/wari Prasad, for the appellants.
M unahi Narain Prasad /Is/jffta.m/, for th^
L i n d s a y and K a n h a i y a L a l , J J , ;— W e have he^rd
counsel o n -b o th sides in this appeal and liave com e to tlie
con clu sion that the judgm ent o f the low er appellate cou rt is

, * Second Appeal^ 1 ‘2d5 of 1920, from a decree of T . K . Johnstbii,


Diati'ict Judge of Agra, dated the l l t l i of September, reversing a d.ecreQ
o f Kanleshar Nath B a i, Judge of the Court of Small Causes, exercising the
powers of a Subordinate Judge of Agra, dated tlje 29tli: o f June, 1920.

You might also like