TMI Blog1995 (8) TMI 332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is the admitted case of the parties that these Inams were impartible and had to devolve upon the eldest son by the rule of primogeniture. The other property was a dwelling unit which was owned by Sayed Abdulla and remained in possession of abubakar. On the abolition of the `Inams' under the provisions of the Bombay Merged Territories Miscellaneous Alienations Abolition Act, 1955, Abubakar was regarded as a Watandar on re-grant of the properties. His brothers and sisters, on the one side ,laid claims to those lands as co-heirs of Abubakar, taking the plea that by virtue of inheritance, they had a share in that property; the bar of impartiability and the rule of primogeniture having gone. Regarding the house property,they laid claims t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lwant (dead) by lrs and heirs and others [1995 (2) SCC 543] would have taken over the field to hold that the properties in the hands of the Watandar were joint family properties and partible after the re-grant . He tried in vain to convince us that principally it would make a difference if the parties were Mohammedans, as presently they are. If we come to analyse the proposition canvassed, Syed Abdulla's estate should normally have devolved upon his six children in accordance with the shares as defined by the Shariat Law. But, since the properties were Inams and Impartible and the services to the Ruler due from the members of the family were expected to be taken from the eldest son by the rule of primogeniture, then the heirs of Syed Ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xclusion of other heirs, and his being in possession openly and hostilely. It is true that some evidence, basically of Municipal register entries, were inducted to prove the point but no amount of proof can substitute pleadings which are the foundation of the claim of a litigating party. The High Court caught the appellant right at that point and drawing inference from the evidence produced on record, concluded that correct principles relating to the plea of adverse possession were not applied by the courts below. The finding, as it appears to us, was rightly reversed by the High Court requiring no interference at our end. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed. No costs. - - TaxTMI - TM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
