MOHIDEEN ABDUL KHADAR (DEAD)THROUGH LRS. versus RAHMATH BEEVI (D) THR. HER LRS. AND ORS.

Citation: [2023] 14 S.C.R. 164 · Decided: 01-11-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIRUDDHA BOSE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 14 S.C.R. 164 : 2023 INSC 969
164
CASE DETAILS
MOHIDEEN ABDUL KHADAR (DEAD)THROUGH LRS.
v.
RAHMATH BEEVI (D) THR. HER LRS. AND ORS.
(Petition For Special Leave To Appeal (Civil) Nos 24748-24749 of 2023)
NOVEMBER 01, 2023
[ANIRUDDHA BOSE AND SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Dispute inter alia over retention of possession 
and tenancy right of predecessor of the petitioners in respect of second 
scheduled property (measurement of which was disputed in the suit fi led 
by the predecessor of the respondents), as described in his plaint.
Suit – As regards the second scheduled property, the case of the 
petitioners is that it was rented out to their predecessor by its owner ‘AB’ 
– ‘AB’ had conveyed this property to the predecessor of the respondents 
through another deed – Predecessor of the petitioners sought declaration 
of title to the fi rst scheduled land and permanent injunction restraining 
the defendants from disturbing his peaceful possession over the second 
scheduled property – In the suit instituted by the predecessor of the 
respondents, mandatory injunction was sought seeking removal of 
petitioner’s predecessor along with another person from the properties 
specifi ed – Dispute over dimension of the second scheduled property 
– Validity of notice u/s.106, Transfer of Property Act – Petitioners if 
entitled to protection of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act:
Held: The second scheduled property in the plaint filed by the 
predecessor of the respondents showing measurement of 15 feet (east-west) 
and 18 feet (north-south) is the correct measurement thereof– No reason not 
to accept this measurement – Further, on the question of validity of notice 
u/s.106, 1882 Act and whether the petitioners were entitled to protection of 
the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act or not, the High Court found 
both the points in favour of the predecessor of the respondents – No reason 
165
to interfere with the fi nding returned by the High Court – In substance, it 
retained the decision of the Trial Court in the suit fi led by the predecessor 
of the petitioners in relation to second scheduled property – Transfer of 
Property Act, 1882 – s.106 – Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1921. 
[Paras 7 and 8]
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (Civil) 
Nos.24748-24749 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.09.2018 of the High Court of 
Judicature at Madras at Madurai in SAMD Nos.576 of 2002 and 02 of 2005.
Appearances:
Varinder Kumar Sharma, Yugal Kishor Prasad, Ms. Parul Sharma, 
Shantanu Sharma, Bishan Dass, Ms. Deeksha Gaur, R. S. Mishra, Mahendra 
Singh, Advs. for the Petitioners.
Ms. Shalini Kaul, Adv. for the respondents.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.
Delay condoned.
2. The present petitions have been fi led by two nephews of one 
Mohideen Abdul Khadar, who died on 14.06.2019. He had interest in 
two blocks of lands, adjacent to each other located in Thenkasi Taluk, 
Kadayanallurpet within the Kadayanallur municipal limits in the State of 
Tamil Nadu. The petitioners bring this action in the capacity of legatees of 
said Mohideen. The dispute relates to title of Mohideen in respect of one 
block out of the two, described as fi rst scheduled property in his plaint 
which triggered off  the suit giving rise to this proceeding. The other part of 
the dispute is over retention of his possession and tenancy right in respect 
of second scheduled property, as described in his plaint. The fi rst scheduled 
property measures approximately 15x15 sq. feet over which Mohideen 
MOHIDEEN ABDUL KHADAR (DEAD)THROUGH LRS. v. 
RAHMATH BEEVI (D) THR. HER LRS. 
166 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
claimed title whereas the second scheduled property measures approximately 
15x18 sq. feet. There is some dispute on its measurement, which we shall 
deal with later in this judgment. In respect of the latter block of land, one 
Rahmath Beevi sued for delivery of vacant possession whereas Mohideen 
asked for protection of his possession in his suit. The original owner of 
both these properties was one Ameenal Beevi (since deceased) and she had 
conveyed the fi rst scheduled property to Mohideen on 16.08.1989 through a 
deed of sale. So far as the second scheduled property is concerned, the case 
of the petitioners is that it was rented out to their predecessor by Ameenal 
Beevi only. Sai

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.