M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.@mdashThe unsuccessful plaintiff in Original Suit No. 57 of 1981, on the file of Subordinate Judge (Now Senior Civil Judge), Kovvur, West Godavari District, preferred this Appeal against the impugned decree and judgment dated 25.06.1986, wherein the Suit filed for declaration of title to plaint ''A'' schedule property, for recovery of possession and for a consequential direction to the defendants 6 to 10 to deposit Rs. 1,800/- into Court, being the rents collected for 10 months, was dismissed.
2. The appellant herein was the plaintiff and the respondents 1 and 5 herein were the defendants 1 to 5, respondents 6 and 7 herein were defendants 7 and 8, 8th respondent herein was the 10th defendant before the trial Court, in Original Suit No. 57 of 1981. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as arrayed before the trial Court.
3. During the pendency of Appeal, 5th respondent herein died and as his legal heirs were not brought on record, the Appeal stood abated against him, as per the orders of this Court on 30.03.2001. The Appeal stands dismissed for default, against respondents 6 and 7 herein, vide Court Order dated 17.12.2003.
4. The plaintiff filed the Suit seeking the reliefs mentioned hereinabove at 1st para, alleging that she is a resident of Islampet in Kovvur village and gave birth to a son due to her illicit intimacy with one Venkataraju. Subsequent to the death of Venkataraju, she developed illicit intimacy with one Srirangam Satyam, through whom she gave birth to three daughters. About 7 or 8 years prior to filing of the Suit, some disputes arose between the plaintiff and Srirangam Satyam, due to which, they got separated and discontinued their relationship. Thereafter, one Shaik Meerasaheb, resident of Hukumpet, who came down to Kovvur and started a sundry business in a wooden bunk, in front of the daughter''s house of the plaintiff, developed illicit intimacy with the plaintiff and continued their relationship for a period of 2 years. Subsequently, Meerasaheb made the plaintiff to convert into Islam and married her as per the Islamic caste custom, 4 years prior to filing of the Suit, performing nikha in the presence of mosque elders. Since then, the plaintiff and Meerasaheb lived as wife and husband.
5. Believing the words of Meerasaheb, plaintiff handed over an amount of Rs. 30,000/- and 18 sovereigns of gold, so as to enable him to start large scale business and purchase site to construct house in the 13th ward. Thus, the plaintiff parted with huge amount and gold, with which, Meerasaheb purchased site under an agreement of sale dated 14.04.1974 from Sri Kantamani Ramachandra Rao, S/o. Prakasam, for Rs. 1,740/-. However, regular sale deed was not executed as the vendor failed to obtain Urban Land Ceiling (ULC) clearance, as a result of which, registered sale deed could not be obtained by Meerasaheb, but constructed a 4 portioned Mangalore tiled house in 13th Ward, on Plot No. 15, comprising of 340 Sq. yards, out of 684 Sq. yards, in T.P. No. 80/50 of Kovvur municipal limits and later, when the plaintiff demanded Meerasaheb to return her gold ornaments and cash, he did not heed to the request of the plaintiff.
6. Later, there were differences between the plaintiff and Meerasaheb, her alleged husband, on account of his 1st wife''s interference; thereupon, the plaintiff returned to her daughter''s house in Islampet. Later, 1st wife of Meerasaheb died; since then the plaintiff and Meerasaheb lived in the house of her daughter, while acting as loyal towards her. During their stay at the daughter''s residence of the plaintiff, she raised a dispute before village elders, in whose presence, Meerasaheb admitted about taking an amount of Rs. 30,000/- and 18 sovereigns of gold, pledged with the marvadi, for raising money to clear his debts, from the plaintiff. Since then, their relationship was not cordial, Meerasaheb expressed his intention to execute promissory notes for the amount received. Accordingly, valuing 18 sovereigns of gold at Rs. 6,000/-, Meerasaheb executed a promissory note for Rs. 6,000/- on 09.06.1976, and also executed another promissory note for Rs. 30,000/- on 06.12.1976, expressing his inability to pay Rs. 30,000/-. The plaintiff being kind hearted lady, agreed for the same and took the promissory notes.
7. In due course of time, the plaintiff''s husband, being a womanizer, began running woman after woman, then the plaintiff demanded for payment of her entire amount, but her demand was not complied. Later, at the request of Meerasaheb, plaintiff permitted him to occupy one room to run sundry shop in the house of her daughter. While letting out all the 4 portions of the house constructed by the plaintiff, which is described as plaint A schedule property, each portion was fetching Rs. 45/- p.m. at that time, and the same were let out to defendants 6 and 7 and Katiboyina Durga and Amudala Krupavaram. While the plaintiff and her husband living in the house of daughter of the plaintiff at Islampet, Kovvur, some disputes arose between the plaintiff''s former paramour, Srirangam Satyam and Meerasaheb, which ultimately resulted in death of Meerasaheb, due to sudden provocation of exchange of words. Thus, the plaintiff lost her husband. After death of her husband, she being the legal heir is entitled to claim entire property of Meerasaheb, but the brother of Meerasaheb, being the legal her as per Mahomedan law, claiming exclusive right in the property, committed theft of household articles from the plaint A schedule property. The 2nd defendant is henchman of the 1st defendant and both of them raised a dispute before the 3rd defendant, who obtained khararnama in his favour to settle the dispute and believing the representation of 3rd defendant that he would settle the dispute, plaintiff executed an agreement in favour of defendants 3 to 5. Taking advantage of the khararnama, he put up the plaint A schedule property for sale. One Janga Suryanarayana, an orderly of the Circle Inspector, State Excise, Kovvur, purchased 2 portions of the house in plaint A schedule property, under an agreement of sale for Rs. 15,000/-. The defendants 1 to 5, who are in possession and enjoyment of the property, being tenants, have no manner of right or title in the schedule property, and agreements were acted upon, they have been claiming right without any lawful entitlement over the plaint A schedule property. Thus, the defendants denied the right of the plaintiff in the schedule property setting up right on them. Hence, she was constrained to file suit for the reliefs stated hereinabove in Para 1 of the judgment.
8. The 2nd defendant filed written statement, which was adopted by defendants 1, 3, 4 and 8. The 2nd defendant denied material allegations made in the plaint inter-alia contending that the plaintiff is a prostitute running brothel and that she married Srirangam Satyam, and that Meerasaheb is no way related to the plaintiff, except visiting her house like any other customer in the business of prostitution. The plaintiff never converted into Islam and never underwent nikha with Meerasaheb in the presence of village elders at Kovvur mosque and they never lived as wife and husband, and denied even payment of any amount, execution of promissory notes etc., while admitting about occupation of plaint A schedule property by the tenants.
9. It is further alleged that the plaintiff and her paramour Srirangam Satyam murdered Meerasaheb, but the plaintiff could manage the Police to file the case only against her paramour Srirangam Satyam. Consequent upon death of Meerasaheb, 1st defendant, being legal heir is entitled to claim schedule property, as per Mahomedan law.
10. The 2nd defendant purchased the property for a valuable sale consideration under an agreement of sale entered with Meerasaheb. Thus, the 2nd defendant is the rightful title holder. The plaintiff had no right or title over the schedule property and not entitled to claim declaration of her title and recovery of possession; so also the arrears of rents from any of the defendants and, finally prayed to dismiss the Suit.
11. Defendants 5, 7 and 10 remained ex parte, and defendants 6 and 9 were given up.
12. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff is the wife of late Meerasaheb and the nikha pleaded is true?
2. Whether the alleged payments by plaintiff to Meerasaheb for construction of the house are true?
3. Whether the alleged trespass by defendant No. 1 dated 11.06.1977 is true?
4. Whether the plaintiff has title to and entitled for possession and profits of the suit house?
5. Whether the sale deed dated 23.09.1977 is binding and conclusive?
6. Whether the defendants 3, 4 and 5 are not necessary parties?
7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any of the suit reliefs?
8. To what relief?
13. During course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-10 were marked; on behalf of the defendants, DW.1 was examined and Exs.B-1 to B-3 were marked.
14. Upon hearing argument of both the counsel, considering oral and documentary evidence available on record, the trial Court dismissed the Suit holding that the plaintiff was not the legally married wife of Meerasaheb, declinining to grant the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff.
15. Aggrieved by the impugned decree and judgment of the trial Court, the un-successful plaintiff preferred this Appeal on various grounds raising the following contentions:
a) The trial Court would have declared the right and title of the plaintiff over the schedule property as the plaintiff and deceased Meerasaheb lived together in one house, a presumption would arise under Mahomedan law that they were wife and husband, but the trial Court did not consider the principles of Mahomedan law to raise such presumption;
b) The trial Court would have ignored the antecedents and conduct of the plaintiff as they are totally irrelevant while deciding the question of marital status between the plaintiff and late Meerasaheb;
c) The trial Court did not believe conversion of plaintiff from Hinduism to Islam, though there is satisfactory evidence and concluded erroneously that she did not convert into Islam from Hinduism;
d) The oral evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 4 and Ex.A-1, nikhanama of plaintiff with Meerasaheb is sufficient to establish the marriage between the plaintiff and Meerasaheb, but obviously for different reasons, the trial Court did not accept the evidence in view of the minor discrepancies in the name of bride - plaintiff and also ignored the evidence of PW.4, who is no other than the brother of deceased Meerasaheb, which is totally in support of the plaintiff''s case;
e) If the trial Court appreciated the evidence in proper perspective, the trial Court would have granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff, but on erroneous appreciation of oral and documentary evidence dismissed the Suit.
And finally prayed to allow the Appeal setting aside the impugned decree and judgment of the trial Court, granting the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff.
16. During course of argument, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant mainly contended that the voluminous oral evidence coupled with Ex.A-1 is sufficient to believe the valid marriage between the plaintiff and Meerasaheb, but obviously for different reasons, the trial Court, on erroneous appreciation of evidence, more particularly, regarding the discrepancies in the name of bride - plaintiff in Ex.A-1, disbelieved entire case of the plaintiff. A minor discrepancy is a guarantee of truth and it is insignificant when there is voluminous evidence on record and if that is ignored, the oral evidence is sufficient to conclude that there is a valid marriage between the plaintiff and Meerasaheb. The trial Court gave more importance to the antecedents and conduct of the plaintiff, which is irrelevant in a civil proceeding in view of Section 52 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. If that is ignored, the marriage is established by adducing voluminous oral evidence and producing Ex.A-1. Therefore, the plaintiff established relationship between herself and Meerasaheb, as wife and husband, and consequent upon the death of Meerasaheb, she being the legal heir, is entitled to claim the declaratory relief and other consequential reliefs, but the trial Court without proper appreciation of evidence with reference to principles of Mahomedan law, dismissed the Suit and committed an error, apparent on the face of the record, prayed to allow the Appeal setting aside the impugned decree and judgment dated 25.06.1986 and pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff.
17. Even though sufficient opportunity is provided, none appeared for the respondents.
18. Considering rival contentions, perusing oral and documentary evidence, including the impugned decree and judgment of the trial Court, the points that arise for consideration in this appeal are as follows:
1) Whether the plaintiff - appellant converted into Islam and married Shaik Meerasaheb in accordance with Islamic religious custom? If so, whether such marriage is valid in view of her relationship with Srirangam Satyam?
2) Whether the plaintiff - appellant succeeded the estate of deceased Meerasaheb, as per Mahomedan law? If so, is she entitled to a decree, declaring that she is the owner of the schedule property and recover possession of the same?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover rent from defendants 6 and 7?
19. This Court being the Court of first appeal is under an obligation to reappraise the entire oral and documentary evidence with reference to law and come to an independent conclusion, notwithstanding the findings recorded by the trial Court. Therefore, I would like to reappraise the entire oral and documentary evidence, with reference to law, to come to an independent conclusion, afresh, un-influenced by any of the observations made by the lower Court.
20. POINT No. 1: The suit is based on marital relationship between the plaintiff and Meerasaheb. Admittedly, the plaintiff is a woman of easy virtue, who developed illicit intimacy, initially, with one Venkataraju, gave birth to a son; later, developed illicit intimacy with one Srirangam Satyam, gave birth to three daughters and subsequently, developed illicit contact with one Meerasaheb, who was carrying business in front of her daughter''s house in a wooden bunk, continued her illicit relationship with him for sufficiently a long time. The conduct of the plaintiff itself indicates that she is a woman of loose morals and easy virtue, living with any man as she likes, leading sexual life, giving birth to children and leaving them to their fate, subsequently.
21. It is the specific contention of learned counsel for the plaintiff - appellant that originally she was a Hindu by name G. Suryakantamma and later, she converted into Islam, after developing illicit contact with Meerasaheb, continued her illicit intimacy with Meerasaheb for a considerable period; later, married him in Kovvur mosque in the presence of elders, but the defendants totally denied both her conversion into Islam and undergoing nikah in Kovvur mosque, in the presence of elders. Therefore, conversion of plaintiff into Islam from Hinduism and marrying Meerasaheb are in dispute and if these two aspects are settled, then the other issues can be decided.
22. In view of the specific contention of the plaintiff that originally she being a Hindu, converted into Islam, it is for her to prove her conversion from Hinduism to Islam by adducing satisfactory evidence. According to Chapter-II, Section 20 of Mulla''s principles of Mahomedan Law, conversion of Hindu wife to Islam does not ipso facto dissolve her marriage with her husband.
23. Section 19 of Mulla''s principles of Mahomedan Law, defined the word ''Mahomedan'', according to which, any person who professes the Mahomedan religion, that is, acknowledges
(1) That there is but one God, and
(2) That Mahomed is His Prophet, is a Mahomedan,
(a) Such a person may be a Mahomedan by birth or he may be a Mahomedan by conversion,
(b) It is not necessary that he should observe any particular rituals or ceremonies, or be an orthodox believer in that religion; no Court can test or gauge the sincerity or religious belief
(c) It is sufficient if he professes the Mahomedan religion in the sense that he accepts the unity of God and the prophetic character of Mahomed.
24. Thus, from the above definition, it is clear that he who develops faith in Mahomedanism and converted from one religion to Islam can be said to be a converted Muslim and Courts cannot test or gauge the sincerity of such religious belief. In view of the said rule, no ceremonies are required to be undergone for such conversion. Thus, it means developing faith in Islam itself is sufficient to become a Muslim by conversion from Hinduism.
25. In the instant case on hand, PW.2 specifically pleaded in the plaint that she was converted into Islam, professing faith in Mahomedanism. The plaintiff as PW.2, in her examination-in-chief stated that she married Meerasaheb as per islamic rituals and at the time of marriage, she converted into Islam faith and named herself as Nagoor Bibi. This piece of evidence regarding conversion remained un-rebutted and no further proof is required to prove her conversion from Hinduism to Islam and the Courts cannot test or gauge the sincerity of the plaintiff in Islam, in view of observation referred supra. Therefore, her evidence regarding conversion from Hinduism to Islam is to be accepted strictly adhering to the rule referred above.
26. In view of the specific pleading and evidence by applying the rule referred supra, I find that the evidence of PW.2 is sufficient to prove development of faith in Islam religion, changing her name as Nagoor Bibi. Hence, her conversion from Hinduism to Islam is accepted.
27. The main contention of the plaintiff - appellant to claim declaration of her title in the schedule property is that she married Meerasaheb in the house of 2nd defendant as per Islamic rituals and her marriage was registered with the Khaji of the mosque at Kovvur. The same is disputed by the defendants, and the trial Court did not accept the marriage of plaintiff with Meerasaheb and the validity of the marriage. Now, the said finding is questioned before this Court on various grounds mentioned in paragraphs referred above. However, this Court being the Court of first appeal has to reappraise the entire evidence irrespective of the finding recorded by the trial Court and come to an independent conclusion.
28. The plaintiff herself was examined as PW.2. Her evidence in the 1st Para of her examination-in-chief is relevant for the purpose of deciding the real controversy, where she specifically testified her marriage with Meerasaheb as per Islamic rituals and named herself as Nagoor Bibi, after conversion from Hinduism to Islam and her original name was Gottikoppula Suryakantamma. in her cross-examination, learned counsel for the defendants could elicit certain facts to destroy the validity of her marriage with Meerasaheb and this piece of evidence elicited in her cross-examination at Para 2, dated 05.12.1985, is relevant and it is extracted hereunder for better appreciation:
2). It is not true to say that I never married anybody. Srirangam Satyam was my husband. To him I gave birth to my children. I did not file the pronotes I have mentioned in the plaint and chief-examination. My father Suranna was selling tobacco. We never had any property. It is true that alleging that my husband Srirangam Satyam was murdered by Meera Sharief, trial took place before Sessions Judge, Eluru. In that case I gave evidence for prosecution. In that case also, I stated that my husband is Satyam. It is not true to say that in Sessions Court, I did not state that I married Meera Sharief.
29. In view of her specific admission, it is clear that the plaintiff is the wife of Srirangam Satyam and gave birth to three daughters, and before her marriage with Srirangam Satyam, she lived with one Venkataraju and gave birth to a son. Her consistent case from the beginning is that she developed illicit contact with Srirangam Satyam and did not admit that she married Srirangam Satyam. However, either in the pleadings or in her evidence, nothing came on record that she gave divorce to Srirangam Satyam, though she admitted that she gave birth to three daughters through Srirangam Satyam, living as wife and husband and particularly she admitted in Para 2 of her examination, extracted above, that Srirangam Satyam was her husband. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence that she divorced her husband, Srirangam Satyam, the marriage of plaintiff with Srirangam Satyam was subsisting as on the date of alleged marriage with Meerasaheb or Meera shareef. Mere conversion of plaintiff from Hinduism to Islam religion would not severe her marital relationship with Srirangam Satyam, but strangely she converted from Hinduism to Islam without obtaining any divorce from her husband, allegedly married Meerasaheb or Meera shareef, such marriage is not valid according Chapter-II, Section 20 of Mulla''s principles of Mahomedan Law, which reads as follows:
20. Conversion to Mahomedanism and marital rights: (1) The conversion of a Hindu wife to Mahomedanism does not ipso facto dissolve her marriage with her husband. She cannot, therefore, during his lifetime, enter into a valid contract of marriage with any other person. Thus if she, after conversion to Mahomedanism, goes through a ceremony of marriage with a Mahomedan, she will be guilty of bigamy u/s 494 of the Indian Penal Code.
30. In view of this principle, the plaintiff would not acquire the legal status of wife of Meerasaheb or Meera shareef, as long as she did not give divorce to her husband Srirangam Satyam, through whom she gave birth to three daughters, as admitted by her in the cross-examination, extracted above. Therefore, mere conversion of plaintiff into Islam and allegedly marrying Meerasaheb or Meera shareef would not create any valid marital relationship between the plaintiff and Meerasaheb or Meera shareef, if the Section referred above is strictly adhered to. Therefore, in the absence of any proof that she gave divorce to her husband, Srirangam Satyam, her marriage with Meerasaheb or Meera shareef is not valid, in view of bar under Chapter-II, Section 20 of Mulla''s principles of Mahomedan Law.
31. It is the case of plaintiff - appellant that her marriage was performed with Meerasaheb or Meera shareef at the house of Anku Saheb, 2nd defendant, at Kovvur, officiated by PW.1, khaji of the mosque and two others and nikhanama (marriage certificate) was issued.
32. To substantiate the said contention, plaintiff besides examining herself as PW.2, got examined Mohiddin Baig, PW.1, who officiated the marriage in the presence of Makkaji and another, who were elders to the marriage which was performed as per Islamic rituals. PW.1 specifically testified about his officiating marriage of plaintiff with Meerasaheb or Meera shareef in the presence of elders, entering the relevant particulars in the nikha book, producing Ex.A-1 copy of marriage certificate. Original book of registration of marriages will be available in the mosque. Thus, the evidence of PW.1 is inconsonance with the plea of the plaintiff regarding performance of marriage in the presence of elders, as per Islamic rituals. The trial Court observing the demeanor of witness PW.1, and his observations recorded in the cross-examination, suspected the bona fides of PW.1. In the cross-examination, learned counsel for the defendants suggested that Ex.A-1 is a fabricated document obtained for the sake of filing present suit and that the plaintiff is not the wife of Meerasaheb or Meera shareef, got denial of it. However, he made a clear admission regarding receipt of bribe, which is a blunder committed by PW.1. For better appreciation, this piece of evidence is extracted hereunder:
It is not true to say that Ex.A-1 was recently publicated (sic fabricated) for the sake of the suit. It is not true to say that the plaintiff is not the wife of Shaik Meerasaheb. I have taken Rs. 10/-bribe today and giving false evidence.
33. If the fact elicited in the cross-examination of PW.1, is taken as it is, the testimony of PW.1 cannot be believed as he gave evidence receiving bribe of Rs. 10/-. It appears that it is a clear typographical mistake or a mistake in dictation. Even if it is ignored, the evidence of PW.1 is not reliable in view of the observations recorded by the trial Court regarding demeanor of the witness, as he is neither wholly reliable nor un-reliable witness, and much credence cannot be attached to the testimony of PW.1 regarding marriage. PWs.3 and 4 are the village elders. PW.3 is a document writer, whose evidence is not relevant for deciding the present controversy. Similarly, PW.4 is no other than the brother of deceased Meerasaheb and according to his testimony, PW.1 is the wife of Meerasaheb and their marriage was performed about 13 years ago, as per the Islamic rituals and he attended the marriage, which took place in the house of 2nd defendant where late Meerasaheb was residing and the marriage was officiated by PW.1, khaji.
34. The evidence of PW.4 is not worthy of credence for the reason that according to the evidence of PW.1, the marriage was performed in the mosque and entered into nikha book, whereas in the evidence of PW.2 her marriage took place at the house of Syed Anku Saheb, brother of her husband i.e., Meerasaheb and as per the evidence of PW.4, the marriage took place at the house of 2nd defendant. So, there is inconsistency regarding place of performance of marriage and PWs.1 and 2 did not speak anything about the presence of PW.4, at the time of marriage. Therefore, presence of PW.4 at the time of marriage is highly doubtful. Obviously for different reasons, PW.4 spoke against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, basing on the testimony of PW.4, it is difficult for any Court to accept performance of marriage. Assuming for a moment that the nikhanama in urdu, marked as Ex.A-1(a) was entered in the marriage register, being maintained in the mosque duly certified by the khaji, and translated copy of it is marked as Ex.A-1(b). According to Ex.A-1(b), translation of Ex.A-1(a), the name of bride is Hussain Bibi, D/o. Adam and whereas bride grooms name is Shaik Meerasaheb. Even if it is accepted as it is, the marriage of Meerasaheb, S/o. Shaik Anku Saheb was performed with Hussain Bibi, daughter of Adam on 24.02.1975. According to the evidence of PW.2, she is the daughter of Suranna, who was selling tobacco. But, as per the facts elicited at Para 2 of the cross-examination, extracted above, her name is Shaik Nagoor Bibi, after conversion into Islam from Hinduism. If really Nagoor Bibi, daughter of Suranna married Meerasaheb, her name would have been mentioned in Exs.A-1(a) and (b). If there is a mistake in the name of the bride, at least her father''s name would have been tallied, but here the bride''s name is mentioned as Hussain Bibi, D/o. Adam, who is a totally different person. Therefore, the marriage of the plaintiff allegedly took place on 24.02.1975 with Meerasaheb basing on Ex.A-1(b) cannot be accepted. In addition to the above fact, PW.2 herself admitted in Sessions Case No. 22 of 1977 and stated before the Sessions Court, West Godavari District at Eluru, that she was the wife of Srirangam Satyam. If really, she was not the wife of Srirangam Satyam and wife of Meerasaheb, she would have stated before the Sessions Court that she was the wife of late Meerasaheb and not the wife of Srirangam Satyam. This is another strong circumstance to disbelieve the marriage between the plaintiff and Meerasaheb. The relevant parts of deposition of Syed Anku Saheb, examined as PW.3, in Sessions Case No. 22 of 1977, on the file of Sessions Court, West Godavari at Eluru, are marked as Exs.A-7 to A-10 confronting to the witness in the cross-examination of DW.1 though the statement confronted to the witness DW.1 is not the statement and he made certain admissions about his examination in the Sessions Court as witness and some of the admissions marked as Exs.A-7, A-8 and A-10 are as follows:
The deceased was the son of my senior paternal uncle. Though, he was married since last about 3 years the deceased was keeping PW.1 as his mistress. Since about 2 months prior to the occurrence he was living along with her in a portion of letters house at Islampet.
Similarly Ex.A-9 discloses the following:
I did not intervene because when I earlier found fault with the deceased for keeping PW.1 as his mistress, he was offended and asked me to mind my business. Since then, we are not at talking terms.
35. From these admissions, it is clear that PW.2 is only a kept mistress of deceased Meerasaheb but not the legally wedded wife of Shaik Meerasaheb. Therefore, Exs.A-7 to A-10 marked in the evidence of DW.1 (PW.2 in Sessions Case No. 22 of 1977) would not come to the aid of the plaintiff to prove her marriage with deceased Meerasaheb. Another strong circumstance to disbelieve the marriage of plaintiff with the Meerasaheb is her children pouring sacred rice during her marriage, as stated by PW.2, is a grave suspicious circumstance. At Page No. 3, para 2, 10th line onwards, she categorically stated that her children also attended the marriage and sprinkled sacred rice and PW.1 officiated the marriage at the house of Anku Saheb, 2nd defendant, who was brother of Meerasaheb and she got it written in the plaint that her marriage was not performed in the mosque. If this piece of evidence is accepted, pouring sacred rice during marriage by the persons who attended her marriage, is most un-common in Islamic religion and there no such recognized ritual in Islam and the same speaks volumes about falsity of marriage of the plaintiff with Meerasaheb.
36. According to the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, the marriage of plaintiff with Meerasaheb was performed in the presence of Makkaji and another, but surprisingly none of them, who were present at the time of marriage, were examined to establish the marriage or undergoing nikha either at the house of 2nd defendant or in the mosque, as spoken by PWs.2, 4 and 1. In the absence of examination of those two witnesses, the performance of marriage becomes highly doubtful.
37. Mulla''s principles of Mahomedan Law, Chapter-VI, Section 250 defined the word ''marriage'' and Section 251 specified the capacity for marriage and whereas the essentials of marriage are contemplated u/s 252 of Mahomedan Law, which reads as follows:
It is essential to the validity of a marriage that there should be a proposal made by or on behalf of one of the parties to the marriage, and an acceptance of the proposal by or on behalf of the other, in the presence and hearing of two male or one male and two female witnesses, who must be sane and adult Mahomedans. The proposal and acceptance must both be expressed at one meeting; a proposal made at one meeting and an acceptance made at another meeting do not constitute a valid marriage. Neither writing nor any religious ceremony is essential.
38. From a bare reading of Section 252 of Mulla''s principles of Mahomedan Law, offer and acceptance in one meeting in the presence of two adult male Mahomedans or in the presence of one male and two female Mahomedans is sufficient. Therefore, it is for the plaintiff to establish, by producing cogent and satisfactory evidence, that an offer was made by one party to the other and accepted by the other party in one meeting for marriage as required u/s 252 of Mulla''s principles of Mahomedan Law, but strangely, there is nothing on record to establish the essentials of marriage, as required u/s 252 of principles of Mahomedan Law.
39. According to Section 254 of Mulla''s principles of Mahomedan Law, a marriage contracted without witnesses, as required by Section 252, is irregular, but not void.
40. In the instant case on hand as admitted by PW.2, she married one Srirangam Satyam and there is no evidence on record that her marriage with Srirangam Satyam was dissolved by divorce, which indicates that her marriage with Srirangam Satyam was subsisting and she was the wife of Srirangam Satyam by the date of her alleged marriage with Meerasaheb. According to Section 256, it is not lawful for a Mahomedan woman to have more than one husband at the same time. A marriage with a woman, who has her husband alive and who has not been divorced by him, is void. In the instant case on hand, the marital relationship between the Srirangam Satyam and Gottikoppula Suryakantamma, who is converted into Islam and named as Shaik Nagoor Bibi, was subsisting as on the date of her alleged marriage with Meerasaheb. Thus, by the date of alleged marriage, she is the wife of another person and thereby she cannot have another husband, at the same time. Therefore, the alleged marriage between the plaintiff and Meerasaheb is invalid u/s 256 of Mulla''s principles of Mahomedan Law.
41. In view of the discussion in the earlier paragraphs, with reference to evidence and, Mulla''s principles of Mahomedan Law, the marriage of the plaintiff with Shaik Meerasaheb or Meera shareef cannot be accepted for the following reasons:
1) The evidence of PWs.2, 4 and 1 with regard to place of performance of nikha - marriage is not reliable;
2) Admission of PW.1 about receipt of Rs. 10/- as bribe to give evidence led me to disbelieve the evidence of PW.1 totally, regarding performance of marriage;
3) Performance of marriage of plaintiff with Meerasaheb officiated by PW.1 is not believable;
4) Variation in the names of bride and her father in nikhanama Ex.A-1(a) and translation copy of nikhanama into telugu i.e., Ex.A-1(b);
5) Pouring sacred rice on the bride and bridegroom by the children of plaintiff, which is most uncommon ritual in Islam;
6) The marriage was not proved by examining the witnesses as required u/s 252 of Mulla''s principles of Mahomedan Law, and thereby it is an irregular marriage u/s 256;
7) The marriage is invalid as the plaintiff did not establish the divorce between herself and Srirangam Satyam, though she converted from Hinduism to Islam and
8) Offer by one party and acceptance by other party at one meeting in the presence of two male or one male and two females is not proved.
In view of the above facts, the marriage between the plaintiff and Meerasaheb cannot be believed.
42. One of the strange contentions raised by learned counsel for the plaintiff is that when the Plaintiff and Meerasaheb lived in one house, their relationship can be presumed as wife and husband, in the absence of any legal marriage between them. There is a settled law that when a man and woman are living together as wife and husband and recognized by local people, the Court can draw an inference that they are living as wife and husband. In addition to the law laid down by various Courts, there is a specific provision in Chapter-XIV, Section 268 of Mulla''s principles of Mohamedan law, which reads as follows:
268. Presumption of marriage: Marriage will be presumed, in the absence of direct proof, from--
(a) Prolonged and continual cohabitation as husband and wife (e); or
(b) The fact of the acknowledgment by the man of the paternity of the child born to the woman, provided at the conditions of a valid acknowledgment mentioned in Section 344 below are fulfilled (f); or,
(c) The fact of the acknowledgment by the man of the woman as his wife;
(d) The presumption does not apply if the conduct of the parties was inconsistent with the relation of husband and wife;
(e) Nor does it apply if the woman was admittedly a prostitute before she was brought to the man''s house;
(f) The mere fact, however, that the woman did not live behind the purda, as the admitted wives of the man did, is not sufficient to rebut the presumption.
43. In one of the judgments reported in
44. In the instant case on hand, according to the allegations made in the plaint itself, plaintiff lived with one Venkataraju and led sexual life, gave birth to a son and later, lived with Srirangam Satyam and gave birth to three daughters and later, developed illicit contact with Meerasaheb, but no children were born through him. However, the conduct of the plaintiff itself indicates that she is developing illicit contact with different persons, obviously for satisfying her lust or otherwise and giving birth to children. In such a case, the relationship between the plaintiff and Meerasaheb or Meera shareef is only a relationship of paramour and mistress or a "live-in" relationship, but not as wife and husband as she miserably failed to establish her marriage with Meerasaheb, who is the alleged husband of the plaintiff. Therefore, because of "live-in" relationship or living as paramour and kept mistress, the presumption referred in the earlier Para cannot be drawn as they are wife and husband. Even otherwise, she did not obtain divorce from Srirangam Satyam, who is her admitted husband. In the absence of proof of marriage, the "live-in" relationship or relationship of paramour and kept mistress cannot be presumed that the plaintiff and Meerasaheb are wife and husband. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the trial Court rightly disbelieved the marriage and marital relationship between the plaintiff and deceased Meerasaheb. On reappraisal of the entire evidence, with reference to grounds of appeal, I find no illegality in the finding recorded by the trial Court, viewed from any angle. Therefore, finding of the trial Court does not call for interference of this Court. Hence, I have no option except to agree with the finding of the trial Court. Accordingly, the point is decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff.
45. POINT No. 2: The claim of the plaintiff is two fold; the first contention is that she advanced Rs. 30,000/- for starting large scale business and also for purchasing site and construction of house by Meerasaheb or Meera shareef, the trial Court recorded a finding accepting her contention holding 2nd issue in favour of the plaintiff believing that she paid Rs. 30,000/- to Meerasaheb or Meera shareef while answering 2nd issue, this finding was not challenged and attained finality. Therefore, I need not disturb the finding recorded by the trial Court on 2nd issue. Similarly, the trial Court also recorded a finding on 3rd issue regarding trespass of 1st defendant into the house on 11.06.1977 in favour of the plaintiff and the same is not questioned by filing cross-objections or appeal. Hence, the finding of the trial Court on 3rd issue is not required to be interfered by this Court.
46. Taking advantage of attaining finality on 2nd issue, it is contended that when plaintiff advanced Rs. 30,000/- to Meerasaheb or Meera shareef for purchasing property, the property purchased by Meerasaheb or plaintiff is for the benefit of the plaintiff only but the same cannot be accepted for the reason that she advanced only an amount of Rs. 30,000/- and with the said amount Meerasaheb or Meera shareef, purchased the property, at best, her right is only to recover her amount but not the property. Hence, basing on the finding recorded by the trial Court on 2nd issue, a decree cannot be passed declaring that she is the owner of the schedule property. Therefore, on this ground alone, her right in the schedule property cannot be declared.
47. One of the contentions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff - appellant is that she is the wife of deceased Meerasaheb or Meera shareef and thereby she is entitled to claim entire property being the legal heir. However, the trial Court found that she is not entitled to decree for declaration of title and recovery of possession, while answering 4th issue and the same is now questioned. According to the allegations made in the plaint, so also the evidence on record, the property was purchased under the agreement of sale by Meerasaheb; no registered document was obtained due to ban under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. Thus, the deceased Meerasaheb was only an agreement holder and according to Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, an agreement of sale would not confer any title or create any interest in the immovable property. Thus, by virtue of agreement of sale, deceased Meerasaheb did not became absolute owner and at best, he can enforce his right under the agreement of sale by filing a suit for specific performance. Even assuming for a moment that plaintiff is the legal heir of deceased Meerasaheb, she is entitled only to enforce her right to seek the relief of specific performance under the agreement of sale against the vendor but basing on the agreement of sale, she cannot be declared as owner of the schedule property as held by a Division Bench of this Court in
48. The plaintiff being the alleged wife of Meerasaheb or Meera shareef is not the legal heir entitled to claim entire schedule property and she is entitled to claim share depending upon the sect to which the deceased Meerasaheb or Meera shareef belongs to; share of widow under Shia law of inheritance or Hanafi law of inheritance is different, her share will vary depending upon the law of inheritance, which the deceased is governed, but absolutely no evidence on record, whether Meerasaheb or Meera shareef is governed by either Shia law of inheritance or Hanafi law of inheritance. Even otherwise, she is not entitled to claim entire property and at best, she is entitled to seek partition of schedule property, subject to her entitlement under Mahomedan law being the wife of deceased Meerasaheb or Meera shareef. The trial Court while deciding 5th issue discussed about the legal position on this aspect and relied on the judgment of Privy Council in
49. It is settled law that the relief of declaration u/s 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963, is purely a discretionary relief and such discretion has to be exercised judiciously and cannot be granted merely because it is lawful to do so. In the instant case on hand, Meerasaheb was not the owner of the property, as admitted by plaintiff and in the evidence basing on the agreement of sale, a declaration of title cannot be granted as per settled law referred supra. On the other hand, the plaintiff was not the legally wedded wife of deceased Meerasaheb as decided by this Court at Point No. 1 and thereby she is not entitled to claim any right in the schedule property much less absolute right seeking declaration that she is the absolute owner of the property.
50. When the suit is filed for declaration of title, onus to prove the title is on the plaintiff and she cannot succeed on the weakness of defendant''s case. The Apex Court in
15. The legal position, therefore, is clear that the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and possession could succeed only on the strength of its own title and that could be done only by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus on it, irrespective of the question whether the defendants have proved their case or not. We are of the view that even if the title set up by the defendants is found against, in the absence of establishment of plaintiff''s own title, plaintiff must be non-suited.
51. If the principle laid down in the decision cited supra, is applied to the present facts of the case, plaintiff miserably failed to establish her legal marital status with deceased Meerasaheb or Meera shareef, even Meerasaheb had no title to the property, in view of admitted facts in the plaint. Thereby, at best, she is entitled to enforce her right to seek specific performance under the agreement of sale, subject to proof that she is the legally wedded wife of Meerasaheb and succeed the property of Meerasaheb, absolutely, but if she is one of the legal heirs, she can succeed the estate of Meerasaheb along with other sharers and residuaries, if the marriage is accepted. However, on the strength of the agreement of sale, her right cannot be declared in view of the settled law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court. Thus, the plaintiff did not approach the trial Court with clean hands claiming discretionary relief and as such she is not entitled to claim decree for declaration of title and recovery of possession.
52. The vendor of Meerasaheb K. Ramachandra Rao, admittedly executed a sale deed dated 23.09.1977, marked as Ex.B-2, in favour of 2nd defendant Syed Anku Saheb, who is no other than the brother of deceased Meerasaheb and he is entitled to claim the property of deceased Meerasaheb, as per the law of inheritance either under Shia or Hanafi law of inheritance being a sharer. Therefore, the sale deed, marked as Ex.B-2 in favour of 2nd defendant is valid and the trial Court rightly concluded that 2nd defendant became absolute owner of the property, being the legal heir of deceased Meerasaheb. Further, the plaintiff produced certain receipts evidencing payment of tax to the Kovvur municipality and local bodies, but those documents would not create or confer any title in the immovable property in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Union of India (supra). When no registered document was obtained, basing on it, a suit for declaration is not maintainable as held by this Court. Therefore, the finding of the trial Court does not call for interference of this Court as there is no illegality in the finding recorded by the trial Court. Accordingly, the point is held against the plaintiff and in favour of defendants.
53. POINT No. 3: The plaintiff also claimed that she is entitled to recover rents from the tenant in occupation and the same is negatived by the trial Court. However, in view of my findings on point Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff has no title over the property and not entitled to claim any share in the rent paid by tenants in occupation, as the 2nd defendant became absolute owner by virtue of Ex.B-2, registered sale deed, executed in his favour by vendor of Meerasaheb, K. Ramachander Rao. At best, 2nd defendant alone is entitled to claim rent payable by the tenants in occupation of the property. Hence, the trial Court rightly declined to grant decree for recovery of rent payable by the tenants in occupation of the property to the plaintiff. This finding of the trial Court requires no interference, as I find no illegality in it.
54. On overall consideration of the entire material available on record, the trial Court, on appreciation of both fact and law, declined to grant the reliefs and even on reappraisal of entire evidence, both oral and documentary, I find no iota of truth in the allegations made in the plaint regarding marital relationship between the plaintiff and Meerasaheb or Meera shareef and it appears that the plaintiff is a woman of loose character or easy virtue, living with the man of her liking by developing illicit contact and trying to gain profit out of such illicit contact. In such a case, this Court cannot exercise its discretion u/s 34 of Specific Relief Act, to grant the relief of declaration in favour of the plaintiff. If the trial Court did not exercise its discretion properly, then this Court being the 1st appellate Court can interfere with the finding, but when it properly exercised its discretion, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the finding of the trial Court denying the declaratory relief.
55. Considering the grounds urged in the grounds of appeal and the pleas raised in the plaint, evidence adduced in support of those pleas and perusing the findings of the trial Court, I have no slightest hesitation to uphold the finding of the trial Court to disbelieve the case of the plaintiff. In these circumstances, I am unable to interfere with the finding of the trial Court as there is no illegality warranting interference of this court. Hence, I find no merits in the appeal and it deserves to be dismissed, holding that the plaintiff-appellant is not entitled to claim any reliefs in the Suit.
In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed confirming the impugned decree and judgment dated 25.06.1986, passed in O.S. No. 57 of 1981 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kovvur, West Godavari District.
In consequence, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in this Appeal shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.
