Blog

“Whether the reliance can be place in respect of a inam settlement in the absence of inam fair register and in the absence of the nature and type of inam?” These issues were looked out by the single bench of Honourable Mr. Justice R. Vijayakumar in the case of Vappakani v. Seik Mohammed Abbas (S.A.(MD)No.180 of 2005)

Here in this case the plaintiff filed O.S.No.237 of 1999 before the District Munsif Court, Arupukkottai for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The suit was dismissed. As against the same, the plaintiff filed A.S.No.54 of 2002 before the Subordinate Court, Arupukkottai and the same was also dismissed. As against the same, the present second appeal has been filed. The plaintiff had contended that the suit schedule property originally belonged to his grandfather namely Thaipu Rawthar. According to the plaintiff, the said Thaipu Rawthar had two sons by name Kulam Maideen and Mohammed Maideen. After the death of both sons, the plaintiff who is the son of Kulam Maideen is in enjoyment of the suit schedule property. According to the plaintiff, his father’s brother Mohammed Maideen had died without any issue. The plaintiff further contended that a portion of property is Kabaristhan for the plaintiff’s grandfather’s guru namely Maideen Masthan. According to the plaintiff, he has constructed the said Kabaristhan and he is performing the fathiya every year. He was granted patta on 16.08.1999 and he had paid kist on 19.08.1999.

The learned counsel for the appellant had contended that the First Appellate Court has not framed proper issues and has not complied with the provisions under Order 41 Rule 31 C.P.C. The learned counsel further contended that in the absence of inam fair register, Exhibit B1 settlement deed cannot be relied upon.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the suit schedule property has been settled in favour of the Dharga and the plaintiff himself has admitted in his pleadings and in the deposition that a Dharga is functioning in the suit schedule property. When the property belongs to Dharga, the plaintiff cannot claim title or possession over the suit schedule property.

Thus in this case the single bench of Honourable Mr. Justice R. Vijayakumar stated that “though the First Appellate Court has not framed any separate issue, has considered all the contention raised by the defendant and answered them in detail. Hence, the contention of the appellant that Order 41 Rule 31 of C.P.C has not been complied in letter and spirit, is not legally sustainable. That apart, Exhibit B1 is of the year 1921. A private person has executed a gift deed in favour of Dharga and it does not require an inam register to support the gift.”

In view of the above discussions, both the substantial questions of law are answered as against the appellant. The judgment and decree of the Courts below are confirmed and the second appeal stands dismissed.

Click here to read the judgement

Judgement reviewed by Himanshu Ranjan