HABIBA KHATOON Vs. UBAIDUL HUQ
LAWS(SC)-1997-8-57
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on August 05,1997

HABIBA KHATOON Appellant
VERSUS
UBAIDUL HUQ Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

HAZARI VS. NEKI DEAD [DISTINGUISHED]
ZILA SINGH VS. HAZARI [DISTINGUISHED]
BHOOP ALLEGED VS. MATADIN BHARDWAJ [DISTINGUISHED]
T M BALAKRISHNA MUDALIAR VS. M SATYANARAYANA RAO [RELIED ON]



Cited Judgements :-

PATEL DINESHBHAI MOHANBHAI VS. NARANBHAI RAMDAS [LAWS(GJH)-2004-9-69] [REFERRED TO]
BUDDA ADEYYAMMA VS. KANDREGULA SIMHACHALAM [LAWS(APH)-2008-9-13] [REFERRED TO]
FEDERATION OF INDIA MINERAL INDUSTRIES, NEW DELHI VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2014-4-4] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOKKUMAR JAYANTILAL SHETH AND ORS VS. HEIRS OF DECEASED NARMADABEN WIDOW OF NARANBHAI RAMDAS PATEL & 8 [LAWS(GJH)-2014-7-209] [REFERRED TO]
RAJEEV GUPTA VS. J K KASHYAP [LAWS(DLH)-2011-2-152] [REFERRED TO]
KAVI ESWARI VS. MUNIKRISHNAN [LAWS(MAD)-2024-3-39] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM SINGH VS. DARYAO SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2003-11-16] [REFERRED]
GURDEV KAUR AND OTHERS VS. DALJIT SINGH DHINGRA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2017-7-83] [REFERRED TO]
K GOPALASAMY CHETTY VS. SELLIMMAN KOIL CO OP HOUSE SITE SOCIETY LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2002-4-45] [REFERRED TO]
ANUSAYA W/O BAJRANG VS. RAGHUNATH SHANKAR RAHATE [LAWS(BOM)-2000-7-135] [REFERRED TO]
PUSHPA DEVI VS. LATE SH. MAHARAJ KUMAR MEHTA [LAWS(DLH)-2010-9-308] [REFERRED TO]
PALANIAMMAL VS. K.R.C. ANBALAGAN [LAWS(MAD)-2013-2-252] [REFERRED TO]
INDIRA DEVI VS. VEENA GUPTA [LAWS(SC)-2023-7-8] [REFERRED TO]
C. MADANRAJ VS. N. KAMALAMMAL AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2020-2-451] [REFERRED TO]
PALANIAMMAL VS. K.R.C.ANBALAGAN [LAWS(MAD)-2012-2-627] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

S. B. Majmudar, J. - (1.)The appellant on grant of special leave to appeal has brought in challenge the judgment and order rendered by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench dismissing the appellants Second Appeal and in turn confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court against the appellant and as confirmed by the Court of the Additional District Judge, Lucknow, U.P. The appellant was original defendant No. 2 in the suit filed by predecessor-in-interest of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein, one Zahirul Huq, for specific performance of an Agreement of reconveyance of suit property which is a residential house. We shall refer to predecessor-in-interest of respodnent Nos. 1 to 3, Zahirul Huq as plaintiff and the appellant, who was original defendant No. 2, as defendant No. 2 and predecessor-in-interest of respodnent Nos. 4 and 5 as defendant No. 1. A few facts for appreciating the grievance of defendant No. 2 appellant before us in these proceedings, deserve to be noted at the outset.
(2.)The plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 9 of 1963 in the Court of Civil Judge, Malihabad at Lucknow for specific performance of an Agreement of reconveyance of the suit house. The house originally belonged to Smt. Amir Jehan Begam. It was situated in Mirzaganj Kasba Malihabad in Lucknow District of State of Uttar Pradesh. Smt. Amir Jehan Begam sold the said house to defendant No. 1 Shakir Ahmad Khan who purchased the said house by a Sale Deed dated 29th January, 1960 for a consideration of Rs. 7,480/-. Along with the Sale Deed an Agreement of reconveyance was executed by original defendant No. 1 Shakir Ahmad Khan in favour of Smt. Amir Jehan Begam agreeing to reconvey the suit property within three years on retun of the same consideration. Thereafter defendant No. 1 sold his right, title and interest in the said property on 1st March, 1960 to defendant No. 2, appellant herein. It was the case of the plaintiff that the obligation to reconvey the property as per the Agreement of reconveyance executed by her vendor, defendant No. 1 was binding on defendant No. 2. In the meantime the original vendor of the property Smt. Amir Jehan Begam died. Under the Agreement of reconveyance her son Irfan Hasan Khan became entitled to enforce the right to repurchase. Said Irfan Hasan Khan assigned his right to repurchase the suit house from defendant Nos. 1 and 2 under a Sale Deed executed by him in favour of the plaintiff Zahirul Huq on 31st May, 1962. The plaintiff as assignee of the said right to repurchase earlier available to Irfan Hasan Khan under the Agreement of reconveyance, after service of notices to the concerned defendants filed the aforesaid suit for getting the property reconveyed in his name by enforcing the said Agreement of repurchase. Original defendant Nos. 3 to 7 who were the other heirs of original vendor Smt. Amir Jehan Begam were also impleaded but they remained proforma defendants. Besides specific performance the plaintiff also claimed pendente lite damages from defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month.
(3.)The aforesaid suit was contested by original defendant Nos. 1 and 2 alone. Remaining defendant Nos. 3 to 7 did not appear to contest the suit. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 by filing separate but concurring written statements contended, amongst others, that the right of repurchase granted under the Agreement by defendant No. 1 in favour of original vendor Smt. Amir Jehan Begam was a personal right which could be exercised either by Smt. Amir Jehan Begam or by her son Irfan Hasan Khan but said Irfan Hasan Khan was not competent to assign the said right of repurchase in favour of a stranger like the plaintiff. They also raised other ancillary contentions with which we are not concerned at this stage. The only dispute, between defendant No. 2 on the one hand and the plaintiffs heirs on the other, which survives for consideration is as to whether the original plaintiff could be legally assigned the right to repurchase granted under the Agreement to repurchase executed by original defendant No. 1 in favour of the original vendor Smt. Amir Jehan Begam and her son Irfan Hasan Khan.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.