Mahasena Khatoon @ Masina Khatun vs Chabi Begam
Calcutta High Court
(Appellete Side)
SA 407 of 2016
Justice Supratim Bhattacharya
DATE: 7 May, 2025
The appellant has filed an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) in Title Appeal No. 38 of 2014, which dismissed the appeal and affirmed the trial court’s decision. The case involves a dispute over the possession of property.
Key Facts:
- Plaintiff’s Claim: The plaintiff (respondent) claims that the property belonged to his grandfather, Sk. Karim, who transferred it through a registered Hiba deed in 1982 to his wife Asia Bibi. Asia Bibi later transferred part of the property to the plaintiff through two separate Hiba deeds in 1984 and 1986. The plaintiff asserts that after becoming a major, he took possession of the property and that the defendant (appellant), his aunt, occupied a part of the property as a licensee, which was revoked in 2008.
- Defendant’s Defense: The defendant denies the plaintiff’s ownership, claiming the property was co-owned by multiple family members and that she inherited the property after Asia Bibi’s death. The defendant further contends that the Hiba deeds are forged, that the plaintiff’s minor status at the time of the Hiba is problematic, and that the suit is barred by limitation.
Trial Court’s Decision:
The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, granting him possession of the disputed property and ordering the defendant to vacate it within 90 days.
First Appellate Court’s Decision:
The First Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, directing the appellant to vacate the property immediately.
Substantial Questions of Law Framed:
- Power of Attorney: Whether a power of attorney holder can depose on behalf of the principal in matters requiring personal knowledge.
- Hiba-Bil-Iwaz Validity: Whether the Hiba-Bil-Iwaz executed by Asia Bibi was invalid due to issues of the principal’s age, knowledge, and understanding.
- Privity of Contract: Whether the defendant, as a third party, has the locus standi to challenge the Hiba deed executed by Asia Bibi.
Arguments and Analysis:
- Appellant’s Arguments:
- The appellant argues that the suit is barred by limitation.
- The Hiba-Bil-Iwaz is a fabricated document.
- The license granted by the plaintiff to the defendant was not valid.
- The plaintiff has not deposed in the suit and relied on a constituted attorney who did not have personal knowledge of the transaction.
- Respondent’s Arguments:
- The Hiba-Bil-Iwaz is a contract of sale and irrevocable once completed.
- The plaintiff has validly acquired the property through the Hiba deeds, and the defendant’s silence regarding the validity of the Hiba proves her knowledge.
- The constituted attorney is allowed to depose on behalf of the principal when he has knowledge of the facts.
Court’s Decision:
- The Court upheld the trial court’s judgment, stating:
- Power of Attorney: A constituted attorney can depose on behalf of the principal if they have personal knowledge of the facts.
- Hiba-Bil-Iwaz Validity: The Hiba deed was valid, as Asia Bibi executed it with full knowledge and consent. The plaintiff’s possession of the property after attaining majority was also valid.
- The plaintiff’s claim of ownership was established, and the appellant’s contention of forged documents and the invalidity of the Hiba was dismissed.
- The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the First Appellate Court was affirmed.
Implications:
This case clarifies the validity of Hiba-Bil-Iwaz transactions in Muslim law, particularly regarding minors’ ability to receive gifts, and emphasizes the importance of personal knowledge when a constituted attorney deposes on behalf of a principal. The decision also reinforces the principle that a deed, once executed and acted upon, cannot be easily challenged, especially when the parties involved have not contested it during the donor’s lifetime.
Read:
Burden of proof in matters of hiba-bil-iwaz
