Find a Lawyer

Regular Second Appeal No. 46 of 1967, decided on 22nd December, 1986.

‑‑O. XLI, R. 27‑‑Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court‑ Copy of instructions sought to be produced by appellant as additional evidence being unauthenticated document and no averment having been made in application within scope of R. 27 of 0. XLI, C.P. C.‑‑Such document, held, could not be allowed to be produced as additional evidence in Appellate Court.

‑‑S. 3‑‑Life estates, existence of‑‑Proof‑‑No law being in existence to debar Muslim widows from acquiring properties in their own names from their own resources or otherwise‑‑Mere fact that female allottee of disputed land in lieu of land abandoned by her in India was described as widow in records received from India, held, would be too slender a basis to assume existence in her of a mere life estates.

‑‑‑S. 3‑‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S.25‑‑Matter of allotment finally determined by competent authorities‑‑Jurisdiction of civil Court‑‑No restriction of limited estates having been added to entitlement of allottee female of disputed land allotted to her in lieu of land abandoned by her in India either at time of verification of her claim or at time of making grant of disputed land in her favour by Settlement Authorities by means of allotment‑ Addition to or curtailment of rights given to her over property in dispute by competent authorities, 'held, was not within jurisdiction of civil Courts to make.

‑‑‑S. 100‑‑Second appeal‑‑Decrees concurrently passed by two Courts below not suffering from any illegality, held, could not be interfered with in second appeal.

Najamul Hassan Gill for Appellants.

Fateh Muhammad Anwari for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 25th March, 1984.

Mst. Jannat respondent No. 1 was allotted erstwhile evacuee agricultural land in Kamalia Town, District Lyallpur on 7‑1‑1953 at R.L.‑II Khata No. 618 on the basis of her entitlement verified by the C.R.O. with regard to land abandoned in District Ludhiana (India). On 14‑10‑1964‑ Abadan and Feroze (appellants herein) filed a suit for declaration against her and Muhammad Ramzan respondent No. 2 claiming that they and the other collaterals of Ahmad deceased are the owners of the land and that Mutation No. 2541 got sanctioned on 27‑2‑1963 by her in favour of respondent No. 2 with regard to gift of this land was against the sanctions of customary law, without consideration and necessity and was, therefore, inoperative against their rights. They also alleged that limited interest held by her in the land in India had come to an end upon her remarriage in 1942‑43 with one Muhammad Ali and asserted also that the limited interest held by her in the suit land had also terminated in 1962 by operation of law. Both the defendants contested the suit by denying the claim of the plaintiffs in their joint written statement wherein apart from raising certain technical objections against the suit they also objected to the jurisdiction of the civil Court, without specifically denying her remarriage in India with one Muhammad Ali. It was asserted, however, that neither .was Ahmad governed by custom nor was the land ancestral with him and it was alleged also the land in dispute had not been given to her in exchange for the land left in East Punjab but was a grant made for maintenance and was confirmed later. After securing replication from the plaintiffs, the suit was set down to be tried on seven issues framed on 21‑12‑1964 whereof issue No. 1 relating to the jurisdiction of the civil Court we taken up by the trial Court as preliminary and evidence of the parties thereabout was also recorded. Ultimately, learned trial Judge held that the land allotted to Mst. Jannat was not tied up with the customary restrictions but was in the nature of a grant wherein permanent rights had not been conferred nor had the Settlement fee been pay and by his order dated 31‑5‑1965 rejected the plaint under Order VII rule 11(d) of the C.P.C., holding that the claim was not within the jurisdiction of the civil Court.

2. An appeal against the trial Court's decree filed by the plaintiffs was heard by a learned Additional District judge who, observing that the facts set out in the plaint showed that the land in dispute was allotted on 7‑1‑1953 in the name of Mst. Jannat in of the land left by her in India, held that if the plaintiffs considered that she had lost her rights ‑on account of her remarriage taken place in 1942‑43 then they should have urged this fact before the Rehabilitation Authorities at the time when allotment was being made in her favour and, relying on a number of authorities, concluded that the civil Court was not competent to either directly or indirectly adjudicate upon any matter in respect of evacuee property. He also observed that being a grantee of the land, she was a full owner thereof. In result he affirmed the findings of the trial Court to dismiss the appeal on 28‑9‑1966.

3. Plaintiffs have now come up to this Court in this Second Appeal. Herein they have also put in C.M. No. 47/C of 1967 under Order XLI, rule 27 of the C . P. C . for being granted the permission to produce a copy of instructions dated 14‑4‑1966 and the relevant RX'.‑II by way of additional evidence. By the admitting order passed in this appeal on 12‑3‑1968, this application was directed to be considered by the Bench hearing the appeal.

4. The copy of instructions sought to be produced is an unauthenticated document and there is no averment made in the petition) within the scope of rule 27 of Order XLI of the C.P.C. hence, it cannot be allowed and is accordingly rejected.

5. There is no doubt that the Courts in this country do not exercise jurisdiction over the lands situated in the territories now forming part of Bharat and the land allotted to Mst. Jannat was a grant made on the basis of entitlement verified in her name on the basis of revenue record received from India and there is no indication available that the relevant land may have been held by her there as a limited estate under custom. There has never been a law in existence in the subcontinent to debar Muslim widows from acquiring properties in their own names, from their own resources or otherwise and the mere fact that Mst. Jannat had been described as the widow of Ahmad, in the records received from India, would be too slender a basis to assume the existence in her of a mere life‑estate. Since no such restriction was added to her entitlement, either at the time of its verification or at the time of making the grant in her favour by means of allotment dated 7‑1‑1953, therefore, an addition to or the curtailment of those rights is not within the jurisdiction of the civil Courts to make.

Learned counsel has, however, attempted to argue that since the allotted lands had been first acquired by means of a notification issued under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 and then a provision was made with regard to their being settled permanently on the displaced persons concerned, therefore, the Bar of jurisdiction of Courts, laid down in section 25 of the 1958 Act would not get attracted to the facts of this case. This argument, if pressed to its logical extremities, would expose its hollowness to become incapable of advancing the case of the plaintiffs because permanent settlement stands made in the name of Mst. Jannat, unabridged about title in the land. Giving effect to the plea of the plaintiffs would inevitably involve the going back to the time of allotment to be able to now put fetters on the title thereby conferred upon her and therein would certainly come to be made an interference with those orders. Hence, the contention fails as being unsustainable.

7. The decrees passed by the two Courts below do not suffer from any illegality. This appeal has no force. It is accordingly dismissed with costs.

H. B. T. /A‑6/L Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.