Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Halima Khatoon Vs. Sayed Rashid Ahmad

Halima Khatoon vs Sayed Rashid Ahmad

Disposition Appeal dismissed Court Jharkhand Decided Aug 11, 2008
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/521619

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Jharkhand High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Civil
Disposition
Appeal dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. Articles 12 & 226: [M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J., Narendra Nath Tiwari & D.P.Singh, JJ] Writ petition - Maintainability - Whether State Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd., is a State within meaning of Article 12 ? - Held, From perusal of relevant Rules of byelaws, it is clear that St...

Key legal issue
Civil
Outcome / disposition
Appeal dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Halima Khatoon

Respondent

Sayed Rashid Ahmad

Legal References

Reported In
[2008(4)JCR124(Jhr)]

Excerpt

- constitution of india. articles 12 & 226: [m. karpaga vinayagam, c.j., narendra nath tiwari & d.p.singh, jj] writ petition - maintainability - whether state co-operative milk producers federation ltd., is a state within meaning of article 12 ? - held, from perusal of relevant rules of byelaws, it is clear that state government has no role to play either in policy decision for raising funds for federation or its expenditure and thus have no financial control. further there is nothing to indicate that government has any functional and administrative control over federation. state government has no role to play in matter of appointment of any of officials of federation including managing director. federation is totally independent in all respects and in no way subservient to state government in conduct of its business. federation in no way can be termed as agency of state government and does not come within meaning of article 12 of constitution. writ petitions against federation is not maintainable. .....relative of abdul ghani; and that he acquired title by adverse possession.5. the trial court, inter alia, found that the suit property admittedly belonged to abdul ghani son of abdul aziz who migrated to pakistani and; the plaintiff being 'bhagina', and by virtue of power of attorney, was the only near relative of abdul ghani in india; and that the defendant was not the sarhu of abdul ghani as claimed by him: and that the principles of res judicata are not applicable to the present suit; and that the judgment and decree obtained by the defendant in title suit no. 22 of 1977 was not binding on the plaintiff; and that the defendant has not acquired title by adverse possession; and that the suit was not barred under administration of evacuse properties act.6. in the appeal filed by the appellant, after considering the materials on record, and the grounds raised, by the appellants, the appellate court affirmed the said findings. learned counsel for the appellants is not in a position to challenge the said concurrent findings of facts recorded by the learned courts below. he could not show that any substantial question of law is involved, in this appeal.7. accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

R.K. Merathia, J.

1. The appeal arises out of the Judgment dated 6.9.2002 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, Jamshedpur in Title Appeal No. 6 of 1988 affirming the judgment dated 19.2.1988 and decree dated 29.2.1988 passed by the 3rd Sub-Judge. Jamshedpur in Title Suit No. 66 of 1985/39 of 1986.

2. The respondent-plaintiff filed this suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the Schedule A property and for Khas possession of the same after evicting the defendant (predecessor in interest of the appellant herein); and for declaring that the defendant is no way related with, and he is not the legal heir and successor of late Abdul Ghani; and for declaring that the decree obtained by the defendant in Title Suit No. 22 of 1977 is not binding on the plaintiff, etc.

3. According to the plaintiff, late Abdul Ghani left India on 27.5.1964 and then died in Pakistan on 13.10.1983 leaving behind his wife Aisha Khatoon, son Mahmood Ahmad, daughter Anisa and the plaintiff being wife's sister's son as his heirs. On 27.1.1985, the said widow Aisha Khatoon came to India being manager of the family of Abdul Ghani and learnt that on the basis of the purported decree passed in Title Suit No. 22 of 1977, the defendant came in possession of the suit property who was not related at all with her and her husband; and that the defendant raised false claim based on fabricated materials and power of attorney; and that he raised illegal claim of adverse possession; and that the story set up by him that Abdul Ghani died in Orissa on 13.10.1975 was false; and that a petition under Order XXI. Rule 58 C.P.C. filed in the Execution Case No. 14 of 1982 arising out of the said Title Suit No. 22 of 1977 was not entertained on the ground that possession was already delivered to the defendant and then a general power of attorney was executed in favour of plaintiff by her to manage the suit property; and this suit was filed.

4. The defendant, inter alia, contended that the suit property never belonged to Abdul Ghani who left India, rather it belong to one Abdul Ghani @ Abdul Jena who was never a Pakistani national and was living in India in Orissa and died there in 1975 and his wife predeceased him without any issue; and that the plaintiff is not relative of Abdul Ghani; and that he acquired title by adverse possession.

5. The trial Court, inter alia, found that the suit property admittedly belonged to Abdul Ghani son of Abdul Aziz who migrated to Pakistani and; the plaintiff being 'bhagina', and by virtue of power of attorney, was the only near relative of Abdul Ghani in India; and that the defendant was not the sarhu of Abdul Ghani as claimed by him: and that the principles of res judicata are not applicable to the present suit; and that the judgment and decree obtained by the defendant in Title Suit No. 22 of 1977 was not binding on the plaintiff; and that the defendant has not acquired title by adverse possession; and that the suit was not barred under Administration of Evacuse Properties Act.

6. In the appeal filed by the appellant, after considering the materials on record, and the grounds raised, by the appellants, the appellate Court affirmed the said findings. Learned Counsel for the appellants is not in a position to challenge the said concurrent findings of facts recorded by the learned Courts below. He could not show that any substantial question of law is involved, in this appeal.

7. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial