LAND DISPUTE
VISHAL AGARWAL
(Querist) 01 April 2011
This query is : Resolved
I HAVE PURHASED A LAND FROM A PERSON NAME SAY "MANIK"IN THE YEAR 2011. THE LR KHATIAN IS RECORDED IN THE NAME OF "MANIK".
"MANIK" PURCHASED THE LAND FROM "ROTECH" IN THE YEAR 2004.
"ROTECH" PURCHASED THE LAND FROM "PRAVIN" IN THE YEAR 2002
"PRAVIN" PURCHASED THE LAND FROM "SAHA" IN YEAR 1998
SAHA HAD PURCHASED THE LAND IN THE YEAR 1958 FROM MANGLU AND TAMLU SON OF BHOOT MUHAMAD
THE SAHA EARLIER HAD RS KHATIAN AND LR KHATIAN IN HIS NAME.
I HAVE ALL THE ORIGINAL DEEDS FROM 1998 ONWARDS. THE ONE WHICH "SAHA" SOLD TO "PRAVIN" IN THE YEAR 1998
NOW 22 PEOPLE CLAIMING TO BE THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DAUGHTER OF BHOOT MUHAMAD (FATHER OF MANGLU AND TAMLU)CLAIM THAT THE LAND ORIGINALLY BELONGED TO THEIR MATERNAL GRANDFATHER(BHOOT MUHAMAD) WHICH THEIR UNCLE BY DEFAULT ONLY SOLD TO "SAHA"
THEY HAVE CS KHATIAN COPY TO JUSTIFY THEIR CLAIM IN THE NAME OF BHOOT MUHAMAD.
NOW THE DEED OF 1958 VIRTUE OF WHICH "SAHA" BECAME THE OWNER CANNOT BE FOUND IN REGISTRY OFFICE DUE TO FLOOD IN 1968
DONT KNOW WERE I STAND SHULD I GO FOR SETTELMENT OR FILE A DECLARATION SUITE
THEIR IS GUARD WALL ON THE COMPLETE PLOT AND IS UNDER MY POSSESION
PLEASE SUGGEST ME WHAT TO DO FOR QUICK DISPOSAL OF THE CASE
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 02 April 2011
Since the possession is in your hands, you need not go for any compromise or settlement. Further more, you have a document (previous sale deed - probably original i.e. the one from saha to praveen, that itself would indicate how he got the property from Manglu) to show that right from 1958 the land is not with Bhoot Muhamad.
You have to consult a good lawyer in your area to fight the case. Do not only think in terms of quick disposal of the case, there is nothing for you to worry. But you have to fight.
barun deka
(Expert) 03 April 2011
vishal,
I believe Bhoot Muhamad is a muslim. So Manglu and Tamlu being his sons will be considered as "Sharers" under the Muslim law of inheritance and the sons/descendants of the Daughter of Bhoot Muhamad will be considered as "Distant Kindred".
Now as per Muslim Law, the distant kindred shall inherit property only in the absence of Sharers and Residuaries. Therefore those 22 people cannot have a claim on the property of Bhoot Muhamad.
So you are safe.
If Bhoot Muhamad is not a muslim or his daughter is still alive then write to me, i shall offer another advice
VISHAL AGARWAL
(Querist) 03 April 2011
SIR Bhoot muhamad was a muslim and in total he had 3 sons and 2 daughter. i have a xerox copy of the deed of 1958 which cannot be read properly but in that deed 0nly 2 sons gave registry.The certified copy or no record is available at registry office of the same.
now at present only 1 son of bhoot md, who didnt signed is alive and all including 2 brothers and 2 daughter and bhoot md all are dead.the 2 daughter left behind them a total of 22 children
i also have in written receipt From BLLRO office that no record of CS KHATIAN available .the date of receipt is of the year 1998.
my mobile no is 9233419320.i wuld be gratefull if you provide me ur contac no.
i have consulted many lawyer they all suggest me to file a declaration an injection suite but the problem is i have
. secondly I had purchased this land for setting up industry and all the lawyers told me that the declaration suite will minimum take 5 years and go as long as 10 o 20 years
M V Gupta
(Expert) 03 April 2011
I agree with the advice given by Shri Ramachandran.You being in legal possession of the property from 2004 and I presume under registered deed of sale with all the prior documents of title, need not go in for any declaratory suit. The persons claim for the property after expiry of nearly 53 years is ex facie time barred and is hard of proof. If they file any suit then in the light of the suit you may in consultation with ur lawyers take steps to defend ur title.
VISHAL AGARWAL
(Querist) 03 April 2011
The possession of the land with the people i have purchased is more than 52 years as the RS & LR KHATIAN was rcorded in the name of mr "SAHA" Who purchased from MANGLU & TAMLU son of "Bhoot MD"
The land is well de-marked by i feet wall from all side and has a small tin house in which my staff lives.
but the problem is that they dont allow me to do construction in my land and causing hooliganism and giving us threat.
for this i had bought a order from SDO court under sec 144 to construction of boundary which the opposing party vacated in session court under revision petition
barun deka
(Expert) 04 April 2011
As regards the 22 children of the two daughters should not be much of a problem because (like i said) they are nothing but distant kindred. But the son who did not sign (by which i infer that he was not one of the vendors) might cause some trouble because he will be a "sharer" of Bhoot Md as per Muslim Law of Inheritance.
However considering the length of possession you claim even that one son of Bhoot Md. should fail to prove his title in view of Section 27 of the Limitation Act.
S.27 by the way is very similar to adverse possession (Art 65)... if you're not a lawyer yourself, consult with your lawyer who should surely know about it.
then again even if that son is not a party to the sale, you can avail the benefit of Section 44 of the TP Act.
And in case nothing works out there is always the protection of "Ostensible Owner" and "Bonafide Purchaser for value"
VISHAL AGARWAL
(Querist) 06 April 2011
The following muslim falls under hanif law according to which the rights of the daughter is half the rights of their brothers
KANDE VENKATESH GUPTA
(Expert) 07 April 2011
Mr.Barun Deka had rightly said. However, you need not worry since the length of time passed from the time of divesting title openly and adversely in Sahu in the year 1958 is more than 13 years, which is the statutory period for recovery of possession from the original title holders. You need not file any suit for declaration. If any person is trying to interfere with your possession and enjoyment, you simply file a suit for injunction restraining them from interfering with your possession and enjoyment.
