Case Note & Summary
The case arose from a partition suit filed by two Muslim women, Smt. Jameela Begum and Smt. Iqbal Begum, seeking their shares in the properties left by the late Haji Mohammad Ismail and his son S.M. Inayathulla. Haji Mohammad Ismail, a prominent businessman, died on 2 September 1979 leaving a will bequeathing his entire estate to his ex-wife Jameela Begum. Under Mohammedan Law, however, she was entitled to only a one-third share, with the remaining two-thirds to be divided between his two children, Iqbal Begum and S.M. Inayathulla. After Ismail’s death, Inayathulla died on 25 October 1979, leaving behind his mother (Jameela Begum), wife (the fifth defendant), and four children (defendants 1 to 4) as legal heirs. The plaintiffs claimed specific fractions in Schedules A, B, and C properties as per the rules of inheritance under Hanafi law. During the pendency of the suit, defendants 9 and 10 (the appellants) purchased item No.1 of Schedule B, a house property at No.7 O’Shangnessy Road, Bangalore. The trial court, by judgment dated 5 April 2003, partially decreed the suit for partition but held that the sale deeds in favour of defendants 9 and 10 were hit by the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and were therefore null and void; the court also denied them any equitable relief. Aggrieved, defendants 9 and 10 filed this regular first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the trial court’s finding on the sale deeds. The High Court’s judgment recounts the pleadings and the shares claimed by the various parties under Mohammedan Law. The text provided does not contain the court’s analysis, the arguments made, or the final decision on the appeal.
Issue of Consideration
Case Details
2015 LawText (KAR) (01) 6
Y. K. Narayana Sharma for appellants; Shekar Shetty for R-1(2 & 3); M.V. Chandrashekar Reddy for R-2
Mr. Syed Basheer Malik and Mrs. Ahraf Jann Begum
Smt. Jameela Begum (since dead by LRs) and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Regular first appeal arising from a partition suit decree involving Mohammedan co-heirs and a subsequent purchaser's rights affected by lis pendens.
Remedy Sought
Appellants (defendants 9 and 10) sought to set aside the trial court's declaration that their sale deeds for item No.1 of B schedule property were void under Section 52, Transfer of Property Act, and to assert their title and equity.
Filing Reason
The trial court in O.S.No.1419/1981, while partly decreeing the partition suit, held that the sale deeds executed in favour of the appellants, subsequent purchasers of item No.1 of B schedule property during the pendency of the suit, were hit by Section 52 TP Act and consequently null and void, denying them any equitable relief. Aggrieved, the appellants filed this appeal.
Previous Decisions
The II Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in O.S.No.1419/1981, passed a judgment and decree on 05.04.2003, partly decreeing the suit for partition and separate possession and specifically holding that the sale deeds under which defendants 9 and 10 claimed title were void and not entitled to equity.
Judgment Excerpts
This regular first appeal is preferred by defendant Nos. 9 and 10 in the suit O.S.No.1419/1981 challenging the judgment and decree of the trial Court holding that the sale deeds under which they are claiming title to item No.1 of the ‘B’ Schedule property is hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and consequently null and void and that they are not entitled to the relief of equity.
Thus, the subject matter of this appeal is, all that piece and parcel of house property bearing No. 7, situated in O.Shangnessry Road, Bangalore-25, which is more particularly described as item No.1 in Schedule ‘B’ to the plaint Schedule.
Procedural History
The plaintiffs filed O.S.No.1419/1981 in the Court of II Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, seeking partition and separate possession of their shares in Schedules A, B, and C properties left by Haji Mohammad Ismail and S.M. Inayathulla. After service of summons, defendants filed written statements. The trial court, by judgment dated 05.04.2003, partly decreed the suit, holding that the sale deeds executed in favour of defendants 9 and 10 for item No.1 of B schedule were void under Section 52, Transfer of Property Act, and denying them equitable relief. Defendants 9 and 10, being aggrieved, preferred this regular first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Acts & Sections
- Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Section 52
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 96
