Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned a suit for partition filed by the appellants (plaintiffs), who are the brothers and sister of the deceased Shahnaz Begum, against her husband, the respondent (defendant). The suit properties, Schedule 'A' and 'B', stood in the name of Shahnaz Begum, purchased through registered sale deeds in 1987 and 2010 respectively. She died on 06.01.2014, leaving behind her husband, two brothers, and a sister. The plaintiffs claimed that the properties were the self-acquired assets of the deceased, and as her legal heirs under Muslim personal law, they were entitled to a 50% share (collectively) and the husband to the remaining 50%. The defendant, however, contended that the properties were purchased by him out of his own funds, but in his wife's name out of love and affection, and thus were his self-acquired properties. He also argued that the suit was barred by limitation, having been filed more than five years after the death. The Trial Court partly decreed the suit, giving the plaintiffs lesser shares: in Schedule 'A' property, plaintiffs 1 and 2 each got 1/10th share, plaintiff 3 got 1/20th, and defendant got 3/4th; in Schedule 'B' property, plaintiffs 1 and 2 each got 1/5th, plaintiff 3 got 1/10th, and defendant got half. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed Regular First Appeal No. 935 of 2020, seeking enhancement of their shares to 50% across both schedules. The defendant filed Cross-Objection No. 33 of 2023, with a delay of 614 days, seeking dismissal of the suit altogether, asserting that the properties were his self-acquired assets. The High Court, after hearing arguments, condoned the delay in filing the cross-objection, noting the defendant's advanced age of 89 years, his lack of issues and support, financial hardship, and old age diseases, finding that these circumstances sufficiently explained the delay. The Court also observed that the matter needed to be examined on merits to determine the correct shares under Mahomedan Law. The final decision on the remaining issues was not included in the provided judgment text.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Condonation of Delay - Cross-Objection - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XLI Rule 22 - Delay of 614 days in filing cross-objection by defendant, aged 89 years, suffering from old age ailments, lacking family support, and facing financial hardship condoned. Held that the matter required consideration on merits regarding the quantum of share as per Mahomedan Law, and the advanced age and condition of the defendant justified the delay. (Paras 14-15).
Issue of Consideration
1. Whether the cross-objector made out sufficient ground for condonation of 614 days' delay in filing the cross-objection? 2. Whether the defendant proved that he purchased the suit schedule properties out of his own earnings in the name of his wife, making them his self-acquired properties? 3. Whether the plaintiffs proved that the suit schedule properties were self-acquired by the deceased wife, entitling them to 50% share? 4. Whether the quantum of share allotted by the Trial Court is correct under Mahomedan Law?
Final Decision
The High Court condoned the delay of 614 days in filing the cross-objection, finding sufficient cause in the defendant’s advanced age, health issues, lack of family support, and financial hardship. The remaining points for consideration, including the merits regarding shares, were not decided in the provided excerpt.
Law Points
- Muslim law of inheritance
- share of siblings
- share of spouse
- self-acquired property
- benami transaction
- condonation of delay
- principle of natural justice for senior citizens
Case Details
2025 LawText (KAR) (04) 29
RFA No. 935 of 2020 c/w RFA.CROB No. 33 of 2023
Hanchate Sanjeevkumar, J.
Irshad Ahmed K. for Appellants/Cross-Objection Respondents No.1, 3 & LRs of Respondent No.2; Mohamed Sayeed for Respondent/Cross-Objector
Samiulla Khan, Noorulla Khan (since deceased by LRs Syed Unnisa, Nawaz Khan, Ayesha Begum, Raqeeb Ulla Khan), Rahath Jan
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Partition suit by siblings of a deceased Muslim woman against her husband, claiming shares in properties standing in the deceased’s name, with the defendant asserting those properties were purchased benami by him.
Remedy Sought
Plaintiffs sought partition and separate possession of a 50% collective share in the suit properties; defendant sought dismissal of the suit, claiming absolute ownership.
Filing Reason
After the death of Shahnaz Begum, the plaintiffs issued a legal notice demanding partition, which the defendant denied, leading to the filing of the suit.
Previous Decisions
The Trial Court partly decreed the suit on 12.11.2019, granting plaintiffs smaller shares than claimed: in Schedule A, plaintiffs 1 and 2 got 1/10 each, plaintiff 3 got 1/20, defendant got 3/4; in Schedule B, plaintiffs 1 and 2 got 1/5 each, plaintiff 3 got 1/10, defendant got half.
Issues
Whether the cross-objector made out sufficient grounds for condonation of 614 days' delay in filing the cross-objection.
Whether the defendant proved that he purchased the suit schedule properties out of his own earnings, making them his self-acquired properties.
Whether the plaintiffs proved that the suit schedule properties were self-acquired by the deceased wife, entitling them to a 50% share.
Whether the quantum of share allotted by the Trial Court was correct under Mahomedan Law.
Submissions/Arguments
Plaintiffs argued that the suit properties were self-acquired by their sister, Shahnaz Begum, as evidenced by sale deeds in her name, and under Muslim personal law, her legal heirs (siblings and husband) each had defined shares, with the plaintiffs collectively entitled to 50%.
Defendant argued that the properties, though in his wife’s name, were purchased entirely from his own earnings out of love and affection, thus remaining his self-acquired properties; that the plaintiffs had no right as the property did not come from the parental side; and that the suit was barred by limitation, having been filed more than five years after the death.
Defendant further contended that the building on Schedule A property was constructed by him and he was receiving rents, establishing his absolute ownership.
Ratio Decidendi
Condonation of delay is justified when the applicant, an 89-year-old senior citizen suffering from old age ailments and lacking family support, demonstrates sufficient cause, especially where the matter requires adjudication on merits under personal law.
Judgment Excerpts
The defendant is 89 years senior citizen, quite naturally, the defendant is suffering from old age diseases and he does not have any issues. Therefore, in old age, the defendant does not have support from children and as such, quite naturally some delay has occurred. Therefore, delay of 614 days in filing the cross appeal is condoned and also for the reason that matter requires consideration on merits regarding grant of quantum of share as per the Mahomedan Law.
Procedural History
The plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 25162/2019 before the LXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Mayo Hall, Bengaluru, seeking partition of properties left by their deceased sister. The Trial Court partly decreed the suit on 12.11.2019, assigning shares as detailed. Aggrieved by the lesser share, the plaintiffs filed RFA No. 935 of 2020. The defendant filed RFA Cross-Objection No. 33 of 2023 with a delay of 614 days, challenging the grant of any share to the plaintiffs. Both matters were heard together by the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 96, Order XLI Rule 1, Order XLI Rule 22
