9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (2) TMI 127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e month of July, 1908 and appointed arbitrators to partition the Matrooka properties of Syed Shah Abdul Rahim. On 1 August, 1908 the arbitrators made an Award partitioning, the properties. On 13 August, 190 8 there was a decree in the Darul Khaza Court, Hyderabad confirming the Award of 1 August, 1908. The appellant filed the suit out of which the appeal arises on 24 July, 1941 for setting aside the decree dated 13 August, 1908 confirming the award and for partitioning certain Matrooka properties. In 1942, the suit was dismissed. An.. appeal was preferred to the High Court of Hyderabad. During the pendency of the appeal Abdul Hai died in 1950 and his legal representatives were brought on the record of the suit in the month of February, 1952. The appeal filed in the year 1943 was disposed of by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in April 1957 remanding the case to the City Civil Court, Hyderabad. On 18 October, 1958 the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad decreed the suit in favour of the appellant and cancelled the decree of the Darul Khaza Court dated 13 August, 1908. On appeal the Andhra Pradesh High Court on 15 December, 1965 set aside the decree passed by the Addi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een the parties regarding the partition of these properties. But the parties settled the dispute by mutual consent and by agreement referred the matter to arbitration for the settlement of the dispute. 'The arbitrators made an award. The decree recited that the properties marked with the letter 'F' in the plan annexed to the award were Khankah and Dargah Shariff properties in the possession of the defendant Abdul Hai for meeting the expenses of the Khankah and no one has any right or claim over the property 'at present' or 'in future. The decree concluded by stating that the bargah and Khankah properties were not liable to partition and none of the plaintiffs shall have any right or claim regarding the same . The appellant impeached the award and the decree upon the award inter alia on the grounds that the award was void by reason of lack of lawful guardian on behalf of the appellant to protect and represent the rights and interests of the minor in the arbitration proceedings and in the proceedings resulting in the decree upon the award. The appellant also claimed that the award and the decree should be avoided because the properties marked Exhibit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se properties. Third, whether the appellant had knowledge that Abdul Hai had claimed the properties as the ancestral properties of the Sajjadanasheen earlier than the time when the appellant said he had knowledge and whether the suit was barred by limitation. Fourth, what would be the effect of the filing of the written statement by the defendant No. 6 in the year 1958 and the omission of defendant No. 7 to Me any written statement to obtain partition of the properties-in the event of the decree and the award being set aside The High Court held that the appellant was a minor but the other parties were not minors. The High Court Held that the reference to the arbitration and the a ward thereon were void The High Court held that the decree of the Darul Khaza Court upon the award was not a nullity and the present suit should have been filed within three years of the appellant obtaining majority. The High Court also held that the decree of the Darul Khaza Court was not obtained by fraud. 'Me High Court held that Abdul Hai asserted in the year 1927 that the Dargah and the Khankah properties were his personal properties and from that date Abdul Hai asserted his title adverse to the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the application that the defendant No. 3 (sic) meaning thereby plaintiff No. 3 the present appellant is a minor and Nooruddin is the real brother and the appellant is under the guardianship of Nooruddin. The application was for permission to Me the suit. There is no order for appointment of a guardian. Further, the Court in appointing the guardian of property of a minor is guided by circumstances for the welfare of the minor. There is no justification to hold that Nooruddin was either the legal guardian or a guardian appointed by the Court. The decree which was passed on the award appears on an examination of the pleadings and the decree itself that the parties proceeded to have the decree on the basis of the award without any contest as and by way of mutual settlement. It will, appear from the decree that it was admitted by the parties that Abdul Hai was in possession of the Dargah and Khankah and that Abdul Hai alone was the Sajjadanasheen of the Khankah. The relinquishment of property by Nooruddin on behalf of the minor is not binding on the minor. There was no legal sanction 'behild such compromise in the arbitration and in the proceedings result- ing in a decree upon t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Khankah properties on the ground that those were not Dargah and Khankah but personal properties of Abdul Hai. Knowledge of release of properties would not amount to ouster of the appellant from the property or of abandonment of rights. The evidence of the appellant was that in 1350 Fasli corres- ponding to the year 1941 the appellant came to know that a letter had been written by Abdul Hai to the Ecclesiastical Department of the Government of the Nizam in the year 1938 to the effect that the properties shown as Dargah and Khankah in the award F. and the decree were not Dargah and Khankar properties. The appellant also came to know from the same letter that all the properties including those stated to be Dargah and Khankah properties in the award were attached by the Government of Nizam in the year 1927 and after enquiry by the Government of the Nizam all the properties were released in the year 1927. The appellant further came to know from that letter that Abdul Hai claimed the properties as his own. Thereupon the appellant demanded from Abdul Hai partition of the property as Matrooka. Abdul Hai asked the appellant to consult lawyer. On the evidence it would be utterly wrong to spe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... am by One Sheikh Abdur Rahim a tenant against whom Abdul Hai bad filed a suit for recovery of rent. Abdur Rahim made an allegation that the properties in respect of which Abdur Hai filed a suit were Dargah and Khankah properties. The complaint of Abdur Rahim was however dismissed and the matter was not allowed to be reopened on the strength of the orders of the Government recited by Abdul Hai in, his letter. In answer Abdul Hai recorded these facts. The Nizaim in the month of April, 1927 appointed the Secretary of the Ecclesiastical Department and the Commissioner of Police to enquire and report as to which of the properties were attached to the Dargah and which were personal private properties. Another Commission was appointed by the Nizam to enquire into the proper use of the endowed properties. The Ecclesiastical Department by Letter dated 28 December, 1927 held that only the villages Debser and Sangvi were found to be under the Dargah. All properties of the parties which had been attached by the Nizam were released by letter dated 3 January, 1928 excepting the two villages. Abdul,Hai by letter dated 16 January, 1928 to the Government of the Nizam stated that the properties mark ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h and Khankah properties and that basis is wiped out by the Government of the Nizam the, parties to their position as heirs to the Matrooka property. The award and the decree by reason of evidence of facts discovered since the judgement and the decree of the Darul Khaza Court cannot be allowed to stand because the effect of the discovery of the facts is to make it reasonably probable that the action will succeed. In Birth v. Birch(1902 Probate Division 131) the Court of Appeal held that a judgment will be set aside on the ground of fraud if evidence of facts discovered since the judgment raise a reasonable probability of the success of the action. The principle can be stated in the words of Westbury, L.C. in Rolfe v. Gregory([18 64] 4 DeG. J. S. 576) when the remedy is given on the ground of fraud, it is governed by this important principle, that the right of the party `defrauded is not affected by lapse--of time, or generally speaking by anything done or omitted to be done so long as he, remains, without any fault of his own, in ignorance of the fraud that has been committed . This decision was referred to by the Calcutta High Court in Biman Chandra Datta v. Promotha Nath Ghose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whereon it is founded. In the present case, he have with reasonable diligence discovered it. There was active properties were Matrooka and not Dargah and Khankah. When Abdul Hai got the properties released by reason of the decision of the Government of the Nizam in the year 1927 the properties became divisible among the appellant and his brothers and sisters. The existence of the right of the appellant was kept concealed by Abdul Hai. The appellant was not aware of the right nor could lie have with reasonable diligence discovered it. There was active concealment by Abdul Hai of the fact that the properties were not Dargah and Khankah having full knowledge of the fact. It was only in 1941 (1350 Fasli) that the appellant came to know of the Matrooka character of the properties. It was then that the appellant also came to know that Abdul Hai had kept the character of properties concealed from the parties and entirely misstated and misrepresented the character of the properties by mis- leadin the parties and obtaining by consent an award and a decree thereon without any contest. The cause of action for partition of properties is said to be a perpetually recurring one See Mon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
