Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

Abdul Raheem v. Land Acquisition Officer-Cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahaboobnagar, And Others

Andhra Pradesh High Court

Feb 20, 1989

Judgment

CaseIQ

Smart Summary (Beta)

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from a judgment of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Mahaboobnagar, in O.P. No. 741 of 1987, made on reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The appellants, Shaik Ali and Shaik Mohiuddin, sons of Abdul Khader, claimed exclusive title over two survey numbers totaling 7.35 acres in Kalvakurthy, which their father had purchased. They asserted that a partition between themselves and their brothers (respondents 1 and 2) allotted the property exclusively to them under an unregistered partition list. Consequently, they sought the entire compensation for the land acquisition. The respondents, including legal representatives of a deceased fourth respondent, Mohd. Jahangir, claimed competing title to part of the property. The lower court held that Jahangir failed to establish title and awarded compensation to the appellant and respondents 2 and 3 in a 1:3 ratio. The appellant challenges this decision in the present appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the appellant has exclusive title over the property in question entitling him to the entire compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.
The applicability of the doctrine of joint family status and partition principles under Muslim personal law versus Hindu joint family law in determining title.
The legal effect of an unregistered partition list on extinguishing co-ownership rights and the relevance of adverse possession doctrine in this context.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The partition list clearly demarcates that the lands under acquisition fell exclusively to the appellant's share.
The appellant's name appears in the possession and title records (Pahanipatrikas) from 1973, evidencing exclusive title.
The court erred in not awarding the entire compensation to the appellant, excluding respondents 2 and 3.
The partition deed (Ex. B-7) evidences a pre-existing partition of the properties between the parties.

Respondents' Position (as analyzed by the Court)

The doctrine of joint family status is inapplicable to Muslim members under their personal law, unlike Hindu joint family law.
Title and interest are extinguished only by execution and registration when the land value exceeds Rs. 100, as per Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act.
No registered partition deed exists; hence, the co-ownership rights of appellant and respondents 2 and 3 remain intact.
Adverse possession doctrine does not apply as the acquisition occurred only four years after the partition list.
The appellant and respondents 2 and 3 are co-owners entitled to compensation in the ratio of 1:3.
The claim of the deceased fourth respondent (Jahangir) was rejected by the lower court, and his legal representatives did not appeal, making that finding final.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the appellant's claim of exclusive title based on an unregistered partition list and possession records. It emphasized that under Muslim personal law, the Hindu joint family doctrine and its related partition principles do not apply. The court noted that extinguishment of title requires a registered partition deed when the land value exceeds Rs. 100, which was absent in this case. Consequently, the pre-existing co-ownership among the appellant and respondents 2 and 3 remained valid. The doctrine of adverse possession was rejected because the acquisition occurred only four years after the alleged partition, insufficient to establish adverse title. The court also observed that the lower court had rightly rejected the claim of the deceased fourth respondent, whose legal representatives did not challenge that decision. Therefore, the appellant and respondents 2 and 3 were held to be co-owners entitled to compensation in the ratio of 1:3. The court dismissed the appeal without costs. Additionally, the claimants are entitled to benefits under the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, subject to the Supreme Court's ruling on its applicability, with provision for the State to amend the decree accordingly.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is dismissed.

The court upheld the lower court's finding that the appellant does not have exclusive title but is a co-owner with respondents 2 and 3, sharing compensation in the ratio of 1:3. The decision confirms that unregistered partition lists do not extinguish co-ownership rights under Muslim personal law and that adverse possession was not established. The ruling does not set new precedent but affirms existing legal principles regarding partition, registration, and co-ownership in the context of Muslim personal law. The parties are entitled to benefits under the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act subject to future Supreme Court determinations, with potential for decree amendment by the State.

Show all summary ...

Judgement

The only question that arises in this appeal is whether the appellant has got exclusive title over the property. This is the appeal against the judgment of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Mahaboobnagar, in O.P. No. 741 of 1987 on reference being made under S.30 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the Act) .

2. The appellants, Shaik Ali and Shaik Mohiuddin are the sons of one Abdul Khader. It is the case of the appellant that Survey No. 30 consisting of Acs. 5.30 guntas and Survey No. 31 consisting of Acs.2.05 guntas coming to a total extent of Acs.7.35 guntas situated in Kalvakurthy was purchased by his father Abdul Khader and that at a partition between himself and his brothers (respondents 1 and 2 O.P. 741 of 1977), the property fell to his share under unregistered preparation list and thereby he has got exclusive title to the property. Therefore, he is entitled to the payment of the entire compensation. One Mohd. Jahangir the fourth respondent before the lower Court died pending proceedings in the lower Court and respondents 4 to 6 his legal representatives have been brought on record and they claimed that Jahangir had exclusive title to the extent of Acs.2.05 guntas in Survey No. 31. The Court below held that Jahangir has not established that he has acquired title to the property in Survey No. 31 consisting of Acs. 2.05 guntas and that, therefore, the appellant and respondents 2 and 3 herein are entitled to payment of compensation in the ratio of 1:3. Assailing the legality thereof, the appeal has been filed.

3. The contention of Sri C.R. Pratap Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellant, is that the partition list clearly demarcates that the lands under acquisition had fallen to the share of the appellant and that, therefore, he has got exclusive title to the property. In the column relating to possession and title the name of the appellant has been entered in the Pahanipatrikas from the year 1973 and that, therefore, he has got exclusive title and the Court has committed grievous error in not granting the amount to the appellant to the exclusion of respondents 2 and 3. I find no force in the contention. This doctrine of joint family status in inapplicable to the Muslim members under their personal law. The right, title and interest, if any, is to be extinguished only by execution and registration when the value of the land is more than Rs. 100/- under S.17 read with S.49 of the Registration Act. Then and then alone, right, title and interest in the land held by the person stands extinguished and stands vested in the other person. In this case, no registered partition deed has been executed and registered. Thereby the pre-existing right, title and interest as co-owners by the three brothers namely the appellant and respondents 2 and 3 has not been extinguished and their position is one of co-owners. The position of one co-owner enures to the benefit of another co-owner unless the one co-owner assets his exclusive right, title and interest to the knowledge of the other co-owners and the other co-owners acquiesces to the same and continues to remain so for over 12 years from the date of the assertion of the title and then alone one co-owner acquired adverse title against the other co-owners. In this case, alleged partition list is of the year 1973 and the acquisition was made in the year 1977. Therefore, the doctrine of adverse possession does not come to the aid of the appellant. It is then contended that the partition deed Ex. B-7 clearly discloses the pre-existing partition of the properties between the parties. But this partition list would be applicable provided the doctrine of joint family status applicable to Hindu joint family applies to the Muslims. But the doctrine of Hindu joint family does not apply to the Muslims, and therefore, the partition list is not applicable to the parties in this case. The Court below found that Jahangir, the fourth respondent therein was not entitled to the property and the appellant and the respondents 2 and 3 are entitled to the property in equal shares and accordingly granted compensation at the ratio of1:3. The legal representatives of Jahangir have not challenged the judgment of the Court below by filing any appeal. Thereby it has come final. Thereby the appellant and the respondents 2 and 3 are entitled to the compensation in the ratio of 1:3 as co-owners. The appeal is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances without costs.

4. The claimants are entitled to all the benefits of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act and this will be subject to the result of the Supreme Court. In the event of the Supreme Court holding that the Amendment Act has no application to the pending cases, it is open to the State to file an application to amend the decree.

Appeal dismissed.