In a significant legal battle over property ownership, the Supreme Court of India has delivered a crucial judgment in the case of resolving disputes between Farid and Khan & Others. The court’s decision reinstates the rights of the rightful owner after a long-standing tussle. Stay tuned to learn more about this landmark ruling in the property rights saga.
Facts
- The plaintiff, Gulam Farid redeemed 1/3 share from Ahmadulla Khan and sold it to Lalta Prasad Tamta.
- Lalta Prasad Tamta acquired full ownership of the property and transferred it to Mohan Chandra Tamta.
- Defendants claimed ownership through defendant no.3, Mustaffa Shah Khan, who was not a party in the suit.
- Lalta Prasad Tamta faced challenges to his title over the property from defendants who claimed to be tenants of Mustaffa Shah Khan.
- Legal proceedings including suits and appeals were undertaken to resolve ownership disputes and eviction matters, leading to dismissals and settlements.
- The first appellate court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit as plaintiff is the owner of the property only to the extent of 3/4 share.
- The tenants, defendant nos. 1 and 2, were not liable to be evicted as they were tenants of defendant no.3.
- The High Court in the first round set aside the judgment of the first appellate court and decreed the suit for possession.
- Smt. Murtaza Jahan filed an appeal in this Court as she was one of the legal heirs and had not been served notice.
- The appeal was allowed solely on the grounds of lack of notice served to Smt. Murtaza Jahan.
- The case was remanded to the High Court by this Court.
Also Read: Enforcement of Foreign Award: Case of Oscar Investments Limited and RHC Holding Private Limited
Analysis
- The High Court framed three questions of law but the substantial question at serial no.3 was whether defendant nos. 1 and 2, who were tenants, could challenge the finding of the trial court regarding the ownership of the property.
- Defendant no.3, Mustaffa Shah Khan, did not challenge the trial court’s decree regarding his title, which led to the conclusion that defendant nos. 1 and 2, being tenants, could not challenge the ownership finding which did not directly concern them.
- The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, establishing the plaintiff as the full owner of the redeemed property, and concluded that defendant no.3 had no share in the property.
- The High Court’s error was allowing defendant nos. 1 and 2 to challenge the ownership finding, which should have been contested by defendant no.3 who had ownership interest in the property.
- The tenants, defendant nos. 1 and 2, could not challenge the ownership finding made by the trial court, as they were not the parties directly involved in the ownership dispute.
- The appeal filed by the plaintiffs challenging the decree was not maintainable.
- The plaintiffs could not challenge the decree on the grounds of full ownership of the property.
- The issue of full ownership was not a valid ground for appeal before the District Judge.
Also Read: NGOs Substantial Financing Case: Supreme Court’s Judgment on Public Authority Definition
Decision
- The High Court judgment dated 31.03.2009 in Second Appeal No.670 of 2001 has been set aside.
- The trial court’s judgment and decree dated 23.03.1975, decreeing the suit in favor of the appellants, has been restored.
- No costs have been ordered regarding this appeal.
- Any pending applications related to this matter have also been disposed of.
Also Read: Maintenance Rights of Divorced Women: Reconsideration Plea by Mr. Debal Banerjee
Case Title: MOHAN CHANDRA TAMTA (DEAD) THR. LRS Vs. ALI AHMED (D) THR LRS
Case Number: C.A. No.-004610-004610 / 2014
