LexS.M.KARIM versus MST. BIBI SAKINA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SUPREME COURT REPORTS IPM Even so, learned counsel for the resflondent contended Hiralal-Prabhu- that in the view taken by the High Court it had become bhai unnecessary for it to give its findings on two of the important Nagind:· Atma- issues that arose in the case, namely, issues 3 a.'!d 4, which ram are as follows : Subba Rao J. Issue 3. Whether the plaintiff proves that he wants 1964 February 14. possession for bona fide personal cultivation. Issue 4. Whether the defendant proves that he had not damaged the suit property in view of the decision in Reg. C. Suit No. 619 of 1950 by the Joint Civil Judge (J.D.J, Surat; He, therefore, pointed out that the matter would have to be remanded to the High Court for its decision on the said two points. In view of the supervening circumstances, it is not possible to accede to this argument. As pointed out earlier, on April 23, 1951, the respondent issued the notice on the ground that the tenancy of six years would expire on March 31, 1952. But by reason of the 1939 Act the tenancy was statutorily extended till 1956. So the said notice had become ineffective and the respondent would not be entitled to any relief on its basis. It would be open to him to take any appropriate proceedings, which the law allows, m a proper tribunal. In the circumstances the only course open to us is to set aside the decree of the High -Court and to restore that of the Dirstict Judge. The parties will bear their respective costs throughout. Appeal allowed. S. M. KARIM v. MST. BIBI SAKINA (M. HIDAYATULLAH AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL JJ.) Benami Transaction-Protection under s. 66-lf available to transfertt- Sub-s. (2) applies to creditors-Suit for adverse possession, if lie.r- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act 5 of 1908), •· 66. - 6 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS The appellant K claimed certain property alleging that he had purchased it from one A, who had purchased it benami in the name of one H, and H in turn had sold it to S the respondent. Held: (i) The protection available by s. 66 of the Code of Civil l'rocedure is not only against the certified purchaser but atso against anyone claiming through him and s. 66 bars the claim. The second sub-section refer to the claims of creditors and not of transferees, 'vhich is dealt with in the first sub-section. (ii) If the possession of the real owner ripens into title under the Limitation Act and he is dispossessed, he ..::an sue to olS'tain possession, for he does not then rely on th'.::: benan1i nature of the transaction. But the alternative claim must be clearly made and proved. Adverse possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and extent and a plea is required at the least to show when possession becomes adverse so that the starting point of limitation against the party affected can be found. Sukan v. Krishnand, l.L.R. 32 Pat. 352, Sri Bhagwan Sbigh v. Ram Basi Kuer, A.J.R. 1957 Pat 157 and Bishun Dayal v. Kesho Prasud, A.l.R. 1940 P .C. 202, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 647 of 1962. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree ·dated December 3, 1959 of the Patna High Court in Appeal from Appellate Decree No. 642 of 1957. S. P. Varma, for the appellant. S. P. Sinha, Shahzadi Mohiuddin and Shaukat Hussain, for the respondent. February 14, 1964. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 1964 S. M. Karim v. Bibi Sakina. HIDAYATULLAH, J.-This is an appeal by special leave Hidayat•l/ah J. against the judgment of the High Court of Patna reversing the concurrent judgments of the two courts below, and ordering the dismissal of the suit of the appellant. The appellant is Syed M. Karim, son of one Syed Aulad Ali and the respondent Mst. Bibi Saldna (defendant No. 11) is transferee of the properties in dispute from !fakir Alam (defendant No. 2), son-in-law of Syed Aulad Ali. The appellant, in his turn, is a transferee of the same properties frpm his father Syed A ulad Ali. · J9M S. M. Karim •. Bibi Sakina. Hidayatullah J, 7'32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS The suit was brought for declaration of atle and con- firmation of possession or in the alternative for delivery thereof against several defendants in respect of this and otl1er properties. We are not concerned· in this appeal with the other defendants or the oilier properues. This part of the appellant's suit was based on tlle allegation that Syed Aulad Ali had purchased
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.