9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Suit for pre-emption under Mahomedan law, determination of the effective date of sale, promptness in performing shafiat ceremonies.
Analysis: 1. The case involved an appeal in a suit for pre-emption under Mahomedan law, applicable even if the parties are Hindus. The main issues were determining the effective date of the sale and promptness in performing shafiat ceremonies. The sale in question was evidenced by a deed presented for registration on August 30th, with the vendor putting the vendee in possession before that date. The Sub-Registrar made endorsements on the deed on the date of registration, and the final registration was completed on September 3rd. The Munsif decreed the suit, but the Subordinate Judge and Henderson, J., reversed the decision, citing delay in performing the first talab or demand on September 4th. 2. Regarding the effective date of the sale, three possible points were considered: when the vendor put the vendee in possession, when the transfer became operative under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, or any other intended point of time. Since the third point was not indicated in the pleadings, the second point was deemed relevant. The registration of the deed was crucial, with the completion of registration being necessary for the transfer to be effective. The registration process includes making endorsements, certification, and copying of documents, as prescribed by Section 49 of the Registration Act. The sale was held to have taken place on September 3rd, based on the registration process. 3. In terms of promptness in performing shafiat ceremonies, the plaintiff claimed to have learned of the sale on September 4th and promptly made the talab. However, the Subordinate Judge found discrepancies in the plaintiff's account, concluding that the plaintiff must have known about the registration earlier, and the talab at the Bar Library was staged. As promptness was not established, the plaintiff's suit was rightfully dismissed. The judgment was upheld on appeal by R.C. Mitter, J., concurring with the decision to dismiss the appeal.
|
