{"id":177306,"date":"2011-04-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-04-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-shehla-burney-ors-vs-syed-ali-mossa-raza-dead-by-lrs-on-21-april-2011"},"modified":"2015-03-12T04:13:57","modified_gmt":"2015-03-11T22:43:57","slug":"dr-shehla-burney-ors-vs-syed-ali-mossa-raza-dead-by-lrs-on-21-april-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-shehla-burney-ors-vs-syed-ali-mossa-raza-dead-by-lrs-on-21-april-2011","title":{"rendered":"Dr. Shehla Burney & Ors vs Syed Ali Mossa Raza (Dead) By Lrs.& … on 21 April, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Dr. Shehla Burney & Ors vs Syed Ali Mossa Raza (Dead) By Lrs.& … on 21 April, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: …………………..J.<\/div>\n
Bench: G.S. Singhvi, Asok Kumar Ganguly<\/div>\n
                                                                                  REPORTABLE\n\n\n\n\n                     IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n\n                      CIVIL APPEAL NO.6409 OF 2002\n\n\n\n\n\nDr. Shehla Burney and others                                                ..Appellant(s)\n\n\n\n\n\n                                     - Versus -\n\n\n\n\n\nSyed Ali Mossa Raza (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors.                                   ..Respondent(s)\n\n\n\n\n\n                              J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
GANGULY, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.    This   appeal   is   from   a   judgment   dated   3rd  April <\/p>\n
      2002   by   the   High   Court   of   Andhra   Pradesh   in   a <\/p>\n
      First Appeal. The material facts of the case, as <\/p>\n
      appear          from         the         records,         are         discussed <\/p>\n
      hereinbelow.\n<\/p>\n
                                               1<\/span><\/p>\n
2.    As   asserted   by   the   appellants,   the   suit   land <\/p>\n
      (Original   Suit   No.164\/76)   falls   under   Survey <\/p>\n
      No.129\/64. The respondents No.1, 2 and 3 were the <\/p>\n
      original   plaintiffs   and   according   to   them   the <\/p>\n
      suit   land   falls   in   Survey   No.129\/55.   The <\/p>\n
      appellants herein are the legal heirs of original <\/p>\n
      defendant   No.2.   The   respondents   4\/1   and   4\/2   are <\/p>\n
      the   legal   heirs   of   original   defendant   No.1.\n<\/p>\n
      Respondents   1,   2   and   3,   as   noted   above,   are   the <\/p>\n
      original   plaintiffs.   The   case   of   the   appellants <\/p>\n
      is   that   the   suit   land   belonged   to   one   Dr.   Zafar <\/p>\n
      Hussain   who   transferred   the   same   to   one   Sajid <\/p>\n
      Hassan by a registered sale deed dated 20.1.1950.\n<\/p>\n
      Thereupon,   Sajid   Hassan   sold   on   or   about <\/p>\n
      22.7.1963   the   said   land   to   Razia   Begum,   the <\/p>\n
      predecessor-in-title   of   original   defendant   no.1 <\/p>\n
      by   a   registered   sale   deed   for   a   total <\/p>\n
      consideration   of   Rs.6000\/-.   Razia   Begum   remained <\/p>\n
      in   uninterrupted   and   peaceful   possession   of   the <\/p>\n
      said   property   from   the   date   of   her   purchase.   On <\/p>\n
      or   about   11.08.1963   Razia   Begum   obtained   house <\/p>\n
                                    2<\/span><\/p>\n
construction   loan   from   the   Housing   Cooperative <\/p>\n
Society,         Mellapelly           Limited         and         thereafter <\/p>\n
permission   for   construction   was   accorded   on   or <\/p>\n
about   18.02.1964   by   the   Hyderabad   Municipal <\/p>\n
Corporation.   The   original   defendant   no.1   was   in <\/p>\n
possession   and  enjoyment   of  the   property  till   it <\/p>\n
was transferred on 20.6.1973 to one Lateef Hassan <\/p>\n
Burney,          the         predecessor-in-title                      of         the <\/p>\n
appellants   (original   defendant   No.2)   as   the <\/p>\n
nominee   of   the   defendant   no.1   in   terms   of   the <\/p>\n
rules of the Housing Society. Then, on 4.12.1975, <\/p>\n
the original suit (O.S.164 of 1976), out of which <\/p>\n
this   proceeding   arises,   was   instituted   in   the <\/p>\n
Court   of   the   4th  Additional   Judge,   City   Civil <\/p>\n
Court,   Hyderabad   by   the   plaintiffs   against   Razia <\/p>\n
Begum alleging that the plaintiffs’ father Saiyed <\/p>\n
Shah   Abdul   Khader   was   the   Pattedar   and   Landlord <\/p>\n
of   land   bearing   Survey   No.129\/55   (old),   New <\/p>\n
Survey   No.165   admeasuring   3   Acres   and   26   guntas <\/p>\n
situated   at   Kachcha   Tattikhana   Sivar   village <\/p>\n
Shaikpet   and   the   then   Taluk   West,   now   Hyderabad <\/p>\n
                                      3<\/span><\/p>\n
Urban   Taluk.   It   was   also   alleged   that   the   patta <\/p>\n
was transferred in the name of the father of the <\/p>\n
plaintiffs   by   Sarafe-e-Khas   Mubarak   on   25th  Azur <\/p>\n
in   1340   Fasli   and   the   father   of   the   plaintiffs <\/p>\n
through         a         registered         document         Tamleeknama <\/p>\n
(Settlement   Deed)   on   10th  Aban,   in   1347   Fasli <\/p>\n
which   corresponds   roughly   to   the   year   1930 <\/p>\n
transferred   the   land   to   his   wife   Fatima   Sogra, <\/p>\n
the   mother   of   the   plaintiffs.   It   was   further <\/p>\n
alleged   that   after   the   aforesaid   transfer   the <\/p>\n
said   Fatima   Sogra,   the   plaintiffs’   mother, <\/p>\n
remained   in   continuous   and   exclusive   possession <\/p>\n
of the same till her death on 24.07.1973. On her <\/p>\n
death   the   respondents   no.4\/1   and   4\/2   illegally <\/p>\n
occupied   the   suit   land.   In   the   said   suit   Razia <\/p>\n
Begum,   the   predecessor-in-title   of   respondent <\/p>\n
no.4\/1   and   4\/2,   filed   her   written   statement <\/p>\n
pleading   therein   that   she   is   a   bone   fide <\/p>\n
purchaser   of   the   suit   land   by   Rs.6000\/-   after <\/p>\n
issuing   a   public   notice   in   the   Daily   Siyasat   on <\/p>\n
19.06.1963.   No   objections   were   received   from <\/p>\n
                                  4<\/span><\/p>\n
      anybody   and  the   sale  deed   was  finally   registered <\/p>\n
      with the plan on 22.07.1963. It was also pleaded <\/p>\n
      in   the   written   statement   that   she   obtained   the <\/p>\n
      necessary         permission         for         construction         and <\/p>\n
      obtained   a   loan   from   Housing   Cooperative   Society <\/p>\n
      and   had   completed   the   construction   till   the <\/p>\n
      basement   level.   No   objection   was   raised   by   the <\/p>\n
      plaintiffs   with   the   construction   and   she   has <\/p>\n
      perfected her title against the plaintiffs by way <\/p>\n
      of   adverse   possession.   In   her   written   statement <\/p>\n
      she   also   pleaded   that   she   transferred   on <\/p>\n
      20.6.1973 the property in favour of Lateef Hassan <\/p>\n
      Burney,   predecessor-in-title   of   the   appellants.\n<\/p>\n
      On   the   filing   of   the   written   statement,   Lateef <\/p>\n
      Hassan   Burney  was   impleaded  as   defendant  no.2   by <\/p>\n
      an order of the Court dated 4.11.1982.\n<\/p>\n
3.    Thereupon, on 18.12.1982, the original plaintiffs <\/p>\n
      filed   an   amended   plaint   impleading   Lateef   Hassan <\/p>\n
      Burney.   Thereafter,   another   suit   was   instituted <\/p>\n
      on   15.1.1983   by   the   plaintiffs   against   one <\/p>\n
                                      5<\/span><\/p>\n
      Prahlad   Singh,   who   had   illegally   occupied   a <\/p>\n
      portion   of   their   property   falling   under   Survey <\/p>\n
      No.129\/55   (old).   It   may   be   noted   that   in   the <\/p>\n
      subsequent suit Prahlad Singh did not dispute the <\/p>\n
      fact   that   the   suit   property   is   part   of   Survey <\/p>\n
      No.129\/55   (old).   Thereupon,   in   O.S.   No.164   of <\/p>\n
      1976, the defendant no.2, predecessor-in-title of <\/p>\n
      the   appellants,   filed   his   separate   written <\/p>\n
      statement   stating   therein   that   the   property <\/p>\n
      belongs   to   Razia   Begum,   the   original   defendant <\/p>\n
      no.1,   before   it   was   transferred   in   his   name   and <\/p>\n
      the   Razia   Begum   had   perfected   her   title   by <\/p>\n
      adverse possession against plaintiffs.\n<\/p>\n
4.    Then,   the   witnesses   were   examined   by   the   Trial <\/p>\n
      Court.   Then   by   an   order   dated   19.12.1983   the <\/p>\n
      trial   Court   appointed   a   Court   Commissioner.   The <\/p>\n
      Court   Commissioner   with   the   help   of   a   surveyor <\/p>\n
      submitted a report on 25.4.1984.\n<\/p>\n
                                   6<\/span><\/p>\n
5.    Ultimately,   by   judgment   dated   19.9.1985,   the <\/p>\n
suit   was   dismissed   and   being   aggrieved   by   the   same <\/p>\n
an   appeal   was   filed   before   the   High   Court   in   the <\/p>\n
year   1986.     The   High   Court   again   by   an   order   dated <\/p>\n
5.2.2002   appointed   an   Advocate   Commissioner   to <\/p>\n
determine   the   location   of   the   property   which, <\/p>\n
according   to   the   original   plaintiffs-respondent, <\/p>\n
was falling in Survey No. 129\/55(old). However, the <\/p>\n
contention   of   the   appellants   is   that   the   property <\/p>\n
was falling in Survey No. 129\/64.\n<\/p>\n
6.    The Advocate-Commissioner appointed by the High <\/p>\n
Court   submitted   a   report   along   with   a   Map   in   which <\/p>\n
it   has   been   shown   that   the   suit   property   falls <\/p>\n
under   Survey   No.   129\/55(old)   but   that   finding   has <\/p>\n
been reached on the basis of the judgment and order <\/p>\n
in   O.S.No.   331\/1980   which   was   between   the   original <\/p>\n
plaintiffs   and   one   Sardar   Prahlad   Singh.   In   that <\/p>\n
suit   (Suit   No.   331\/1980)   no   issue   relating   to   the <\/p>\n
fact   that   the   property   of   Prahlad   Singh   was   in   any <\/p>\n
                                 7<\/span><\/p>\n
other survey number than Survey No. 129\/55(Old) was <\/p>\n
raised.\n<\/p>\n
7.      The   learned   Judge   of   the   High   Court   framed   the <\/p>\n
following three issues for consideration:\n<\/p>\n
               (a)    Whether   the   suit   land   is   in <\/p>\n
         S.No.129\/55   as   claimed   by   the   plaintiffs <\/p>\n
         or   in   S.   No.129\/64   as   claimed   by   the <\/p>\n
         defendants?\n<\/p>\n
               (b)    Whether         the         defendants         have <\/p>\n
         perfected   their   title   in   respect   of   the <\/p>\n
         suit land by adverse possession?\n<\/p>\n
               (c)    What   is   the   relief   that   the <\/p>\n
         plaintiffs are entitled to?\n<\/p>\n
8.    On   the   aforesaid   three   issues,   the   High   Court   in <\/p>\n
      the   impugned   judgment   gave   a   finding   in   respect <\/p>\n
      of   each   one   of   the   issues.   In   respect   of   issue <\/p>\n
      (a),   the   High   Court   held   that   the   suit   property <\/p>\n
      fell   in   Survey   No.   129\/55   (old)   new   No.   165 <\/span><\/p>\n
      situated   at   Kachcha   Tattikhana   Sivar   village <\/p>\n
      Saikpet,   Hyderabad   and   not   in   Survey   No.   129\/64.\n<\/p>\n
      In respect of issue (b), the High Court came to a <\/p>\n
      finding   that   the   defendants   have   failed   to <\/p>\n
                                       8<\/span><\/p>\n
      establish         their         plea         by         way         of         adverse <\/p>\n
      possession.   In   respect   of   issue   (c),   the   High <\/p>\n
      Court   came   to   a   finding   that   the   plaintiffs   are <\/p>\n
      entitled to a decree for possession in the suit.\n<\/p>\n
9.    Against the said judgment, the present appellants <\/p>\n
      filed a Letters Patent Appeal before the Division <\/p>\n
      Bench   of   the   High   Court.   But   in   view   of   the <\/p>\n
      judgment   of   the   High   Court   in  S.   Shivraja   Reddy <\/p>\n
      and ors. v.  Raghuraj Reddy and Ors., the Division <\/p>\n
      Bench   of   the   High   Court   held   that   after   the <\/p>\n
      amendment   of   Section   100   of   the   C.P.C.,   the <\/p>\n
      Letters Patent Appeal filed after 1.7.2002 is not <\/p>\n
      maintainable.   The   Letters   Patent   Appeal   of   the <\/p>\n
      appellant   was   returned   by   the   High   Court   and   the <\/p>\n
      appellants   on   7.9.2002   filed   a   Special   Leave <\/p>\n
      Petition   before   this   Court   in   which   on   27.9.2002 <\/p>\n
      leave   was   granted   and   the   special   leave   was <\/p>\n
      converted into this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
                                         9<\/span><\/p>\n
10.    Mr.   Huzefa   Ahmadi,   learned   counsel   appearing   on <\/p>\n
       behalf   of   the   appellants,   assailing   the   impugned <\/p>\n
       judgment raised various issues.\n<\/p>\n
11.    The   first   issue   which   was   raised   was   that   no <\/p>\n
       pleading and no prayer for a decree of possession <\/p>\n
       was   made   against   Lateef   Hassan   Burney,   Original <\/p>\n
       Defendant   No.2   (the   Predecessor   in   title   of   the <\/p>\n
       Appellants).       Attention   of   this   Court   was   drawn <\/p>\n
       to the original prayer in the plaint and also the <\/p>\n
       prayer   in   the   amended   plaint.   It   was,   therefore <\/p>\n
       urged   that   in   the   absence   of   any   pleading   and <\/p>\n
       prayer   for   relief   against   the   Defendant   No.2 <\/p>\n
       (Predecessor-in-title   of   the   Appellants),   the <\/p>\n
       suit   is   liable   to   be   dismissed   as   against <\/p>\n
       Defendant No.2 in view of the provisions of Order <\/p>\n
       VII of Code of Civil Procedure.\n<\/p>\n
12.    The   second   point   urged   was   that   the   respondent <\/p>\n
       Nos.   1   to   3   (contesting   respondents)   who   are   the <\/p>\n
       legal representatives of the Original Plaintiffs, <\/p>\n
                                    10<\/span><\/p>\n
       did not prove that the disputed land falls within <\/p>\n
       Survey No. 129\/55(old).\n<\/p>\n
13.    The   third   point   on   which   the   impugned   judgment <\/p>\n
       was   assailed   was   that   the   contesting   respondents <\/p>\n
       (original   plaintiffs)   did   not   succeed   in   proving <\/p>\n
       their title in respect of Survey No. 129\/55.\n<\/p>\n
14.    It   was   also   urged   that   the   suit   was   barred   by <\/p>\n
       limitation   under   Article   65   of   the   Limitation <\/p>\n
       Act,   1963   and   the   High   Court   should   have   held <\/p>\n
       that   the   appellants   had   perfected   their   title   by <\/p>\n
       way   of   adverse   possession   and   even   on   the   ground <\/p>\n
       of   equity   no   decree   for   possession   can   be   passed <\/p>\n
       in   favour   of   the   contesting   respondents   who   are <\/p>\n
       the         successor         -in-title         of         the         original <\/p>\n
       plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
15.    Mr.   Giri,   learned   senior   counsel   for   the <\/p>\n
       respondents   submitted   that   the   suit   is   for <\/p>\n
       recovery   of   possession   on   the   strength   of   title <\/p>\n
                                         11<\/span><\/p>\n
       and   not   a   suit   for   recovery   of   possession   on   the <\/p>\n
       strength of possession.   According to the learned <\/p>\n
       counsel   the   judgment   of   the   High   Court   is   clear <\/p>\n
       that   the   evidence   is   not   adequate   for   the   Trial  <\/p>\n
       Court   to   prove   the   title   to   survey   No.129\/55   nor <\/p>\n
       it   is   adequate   to   prove   that   the   plaint   schedule <\/p>\n
       property   is   survey   No.129\/55.              The   learned <\/p>\n
       counsel   further   questioned   the   locus   standi   of <\/p>\n
       the second defendant to maintain this appeal. The <\/p>\n
       learned   counsel   also   submitted   that   there   is <\/p>\n
       nothing   on   record   to   show   the   transfer   of <\/p>\n
       property in Survey No.129\/64. The learned counsel <\/p>\n
       ultimately   submitted   the   matter   should   be <\/p>\n
       remanded   to   the   High   Court   for   rehearing   in   view <\/p>\n
       of inadequate evidence on record.\n<\/p>\n
16.    Considering   these   rival   submissions,   this   Court <\/p>\n
       is   of   the   view   that   some   of   the   submissions   of <\/p>\n
       the   learned   counsel   for   the   appellants   deserve <\/p>\n
       acceptance.\n<\/p>\n
                                     12<\/span><\/p>\n
17.    The   submissions   of   the   learned   counsel   for   the <\/p>\n
       appellant   that   there   is   no   prayer   for   decree   of <\/p>\n
       possession   either   in   the   original   plaint   or <\/p>\n
       amended   plaint   against   original   defendant   no.2 <\/p>\n
       stands   proved.         The   prayers   in   the   original <\/p>\n
       plaint   and   the   amended   plaint   were   placed   before <\/p>\n
       us.    The  prayer  in  the  amended  plaint  is  set  out <\/p>\n
       hereinbelow:-\n<\/p>\n
         “(1)   that   a   decree   to   be   passed   in   favour <\/p>\n
         of   the   petitioners   against   the   defendant <\/p>\n
         for   possession   of   land   measuring   2180 <\/p>\n
         square   yards   situate   at   village   Shaikpet, <\/p>\n
         Banjara   Hills,   Jubilee   Hills,   Hyderabad <\/p>\n
         bounded   by   East:   Road,   West:   Plaintiff’s <\/p>\n
         land, North: Road No.3, South: Road No.14, <\/p>\n
         as   per   annexed   plan   attached   to   the <\/p>\n
         plaint,   in   survey   No.129\/55   (old),   New <\/p>\n
         Survey         No.165,         situate         at         Shaikpet, <\/p>\n
         village,   Hyderabad   Urban   by   demolishing <\/p>\n
         the illegal structures on the land;”\n<\/p>\n
18.    It is clear that in the amended plaint the prayer <\/p>\n
       is   against   the   defendant,   therefore,   the   prayer <\/p>\n
       is   only   against   defendant   no.1   and   not   against <\/p>\n
       defendant   no.2.     In   a   case   where   prayer   is   not <\/p>\n
       made   against   a   particular   defendant,   no   relief <\/p>\n
                                          13<\/span><\/p>\n
       possibly   can   be   granted   against   him.     Reference <\/p>\n
       in   this   connection   can   be   made   to   the   provisions <\/p>\n
       of  Order  VII  of  the  Code  of  Civil  Procedure.    In <\/p>\n
       this   connection,   Order   VII,   Rule   5   is   relevant <\/p>\n
       and is set out below:-\n<\/p>\n
         “5.   Defendant’s   interest   and   liability   to <\/p>\n
         be shown.  – The plaint shall show that the <\/p>\n
         defendant is or claims to be interested in <\/p>\n
         subject-matter,   and   that   he   is   liable   to <\/p>\n
         be   called   upon   to   answer   the   plaintiff’s <\/p>\n
         demand.”\n<\/p>\n
19.    Order   VII,   Rule   7   of   CPC   is   also   relevant   and <\/p>\n
       which is also set out below:-\n<\/p>\n
         “7.   Relief   to   be   specifically   stated.-\n<\/p>\n
         Every   plaint   shall   state   specifically   the <\/p>\n
         relief   which   the   plaintiff   claims   either <\/p>\n
         simply or in the alternative, and it shall <\/p>\n
         not   be   necessary   to   ask   for   general   or <\/p>\n
         other   relief  which   may  always   be  given   as <\/p>\n
         the   Court   may   think   just   to   the   same <\/p>\n
         extent   as   if   it   had   been   asked   for.     And <\/p>\n
         the   same   rule   shall   apply   to   any   relief <\/p>\n
         claimed   by   the   defendant   in   his   written <\/p>\n
         statement.”\n<\/p>\n
                                     14<\/span><\/p>\n
20.    In  Sheikh Abdul Kayum and others  v.  Mulla Alibhai <\/p>\n
       and  others<\/a>  [AIR  1963  SC  309]  it  has  been  held  by <\/p>\n
       this   Court   that   it   does   not   lie   within   the <\/p>\n
       jurisdiction   of   a   Court   to   grant   relief   against <\/p>\n
       defendant   against   whom   no   reliefs   have   been <\/p>\n
       claimed   [See   paragraph   13,   page   313   of   the <\/p>\n
       report].\n<\/p>\n
21.    Same   propositions   have   been   reiterated   recently <\/p>\n
       by         a         judgment             of         this         Court           in      Scotts <\/p>\n
       Engineering,   Bangalore  v.  Rajesh   P.   Surana   and <\/p>\n
       others<\/a>  [(2008)   4   SCC   256].     In   paragraph   10   at <\/p>\n
       page 258 of the report this Court found that even <\/p>\n
       after   the   appellant   was   arrayed   as   defendant   6, <\/p>\n
       the   plaintiff   did   not   care   to   amend   the   plaint <\/p>\n
       except   making   the   appellant   as   defendant   6.     No <\/p>\n
       relief   was   claimed   against   defendant   6.   If   we <\/p>\n
       follow   the   said   principle   in   the   facts   of   this <\/p>\n
       case   we   have   to   hold   that   no   relief   having   been <\/p>\n
       claimed                   against         defendant               2,         who         is         the <\/p>\n
       predecessor-in-title of the present appellant, no <\/p>\n
                                                       15<\/span><\/p>\n
       relief   can   be   granted   against   the   present <\/p>\n
       appellant.\n<\/p>\n
22.    The   objection   of   the   respondent   that   such   point <\/p>\n
       is   taken   only   before   this   Court   and   not   at   an <\/p>\n
       earlier   stage   of   the   proceeding   cannot   be <\/p>\n
       countenanced since this point goes to the root of <\/p>\n
       the matter and for consideration of this point no <\/p>\n
       further investigation in the facts of the case is <\/p>\n
       necessary.     This   point   actually   appears   from   the <\/p>\n
       admitted   records   of   the   case   and   this   point   is <\/p>\n
       based   on   the   provisions   of   the   Code   of   Civil <\/p>\n
       Procedure.\n<\/p>\n
23.    In   this   connection   principles   which   have   been <\/p>\n
       laid   down   by   Lord   Sumner   in  Surajmull   Nagoremull <\/p>\n
       v.  Triton   Insurance   Co.   Ltd.,   [52   Indian   Appeals <\/p>\n
       126]   are   very   pertinent.   The   learned   Law   Lord <\/p>\n
       summarized   the   proposition   so   lucidly   that   we <\/p>\n
       should do nothing more than quote it:\n<\/p>\n
                                    16<\/span><\/p>\n
         “…No court can enforce as valid that which <\/p>\n
         competent   enactments   have   declared   shall <\/p>\n
         not   be   valid,   nor   is   obedience   to   such   an <\/p>\n
         enactment   a   thing   from   which   a   court   can <\/p>\n
         be   dispensed   by   the   consent   of   the <\/p>\n
         parties,   or   by   a   failure   to   plead   or   to <\/p>\n
         argue the point at the outset:”\n<\/p>\n
24.      The aforesaid propositions have been quoted with <\/p>\n
       approval by this Court in  Badri Prasad and others <\/p>\n
       v.  Nagarmal   and   others<\/a>  reported   in   AIR   1959   SC <\/p>\n
       559 at page 562.\n<\/p>\n
25.    Similar   views   have   been   expressed   by   this   Court <\/p>\n
       again   in     Tarinikamal   Pandit   and   others              v.\n<\/p>\n
       Perfulla   Kumar   Chatterjee   (dead)   by   L.Rs.  [AIR <\/p>\n
       1979   SC   1165].         After   considering   several <\/p>\n
       decisions,   including   the   one   rendered   in  Badri <\/p>\n
       Prasad (supra) this Court held as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
         “…As the point raised is a pure question of <\/p>\n
         law   not   involving   any   investigation   of   the <\/p>\n
         facts,   we   permitted   the   learned   counsel   to <\/p>\n
         raise the question….” (para 15 at page 1172)<\/p>\n
                                    17<\/span><\/p>\n
26.    In our view this point is sufficient to hold that <\/p>\n
       the   judgment   of   the   Hon’ble   High   Court   is   not <\/p>\n
       sustainable in law.\n<\/p>\n
27.    Apart   from   this,   this   Court   finds   that   the <\/p>\n
       appellants had been in peaceful possession of the <\/p>\n
       disputed   property   from   July   1963   and   their <\/p>\n
       predecessor-in-interest   was   in   possession   of   the <\/p>\n
       same   property   from   1950   till   the   property   was <\/p>\n
       transferred   by   her   to   Lateef   Hassan   Burney, <\/p>\n
       predecessor-in-title   of   the   appellant.             After <\/p>\n
       such   transfer   the   construction   started   on   the <\/p>\n
       property   and   the   appellants   have   been   residing <\/p>\n
       there   since   1964   and   the   suit   came   to   be   filed <\/p>\n
       only in 1975.  Even in that suit after impleading <\/p>\n
       the   original   defendant   no.2   no   relief   has   been <\/p>\n
       claimed against him.\n<\/p>\n
28.    In   view   of   the   aforesaid   admitted   factual <\/p>\n
       position and the legal questions discussed above, <\/p>\n
       this   Court   cannot   affirm   the   views   taken   by   the <\/p>\n
                                    18<\/span><\/p>\n
     High   Court.     The   judgment   of   the   High   Court   is <\/p>\n
     set   aside   and   that   of   the   Trial   Court   is <\/p>\n
     affirmed.     The   appeal   is   allowed.   There   will   be <\/p>\n
     no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                  …………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
                                  (G.S. SINGHVI)<\/p>\n
                                  …………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
                                  (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)<\/p>\n
New Delhi<\/p>\n
April 21, 2011<\/p>\n
                                  19<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Dr. Shehla Burney & Ors vs Syed Ali Mossa Raza (Dead) By Lrs.& … on 21 April, 2011 Author: …………………..J. Bench: G.S. Singhvi, Asok Kumar Ganguly REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6409 OF 2002 Dr. Shehla Burney and others ..Appellant(s) – Versus – Syed […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-177306","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nDr. Shehla Burney & Ors vs Syed Ali Mossa Raza (Dead) By Lrs.& ... on 21 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-shehla-burney-ors-vs-syed-ali-mossa-raza-dead-by-lrs-on-21-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dr. Shehla Burney & Ors vs Syed Ali Mossa Raza (Dead) By Lrs.& ... on 21 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-shehla-burney-ors-vs-syed-ali-mossa-raza-dead-by-lrs-on-21-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-04-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-11T22:43:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-shehla-burney-ors-vs-syed-ali-mossa-raza-dead-by-lrs-on-21-april-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-shehla-burney-ors-vs-syed-ali-mossa-raza-dead-by-lrs-on-21-april-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dr. Shehla Burney & Ors vs Syed Ali Mossa Raza (Dead) By Lrs.& … on 21 April, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-11T22:43:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-shehla-burney-ors-vs-syed-ali-mossa-raza-dead-by-lrs-on-21-april-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2583,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-shehla-burney-ors-vs-syed-ali-mossa-raza-dead-by-lrs-on-21-april-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-shehla-burney-ors-vs-syed-ali-mossa-raza-dead-by-lrs-on-21-april-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-shehla-burney-ors-vs-syed-ali-mossa-raza-dead-by-lrs-on-21-april-2011\",\"name\":\"Dr. Shehla Burney & Ors vs Syed Ali Mossa Raza (Dead) By Lrs.& ... on 21 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-11T22:43:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-shehla-burney-ors-vs-syed-ali-mossa-raza-dead-by-lrs-on-21-april-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-shehla-burney-ors-vs-syed-ali-mossa-raza-dead-by-lrs-on-21-april-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-shehla-burney-ors-vs-syed-ali-mossa-raza-dead-by-lrs-on-21-april-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dr. Shehla Burney & Ors vs Syed Ali Mossa Raza (Dead) By Lrs.& … on 21 April, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dr. Shehla Burney & Ors vs Syed Ali Mossa Raza (Dead) By Lrs.& ... on 21 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-shehla-burney-ors-vs-syed-ali-mossa-raza-dead-by-lrs-on-21-april-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dr. Shehla Burney & Ors vs Syed Ali Mossa Raza (Dead) By Lrs.& ... on 21 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-shehla-burney-ors-vs-syed-ali-mossa-raza-dead-by-lrs-on-21-april-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-04-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-11T22:43:57+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-shehla-burney-ors-vs-syed-ali-mossa-raza-dead-by-lrs-on-21-april-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-shehla-burney-ors-vs-syed-ali-mossa-raza-dead-by-lrs-on-21-april-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dr. Shehla Burney & Ors vs Syed Ali Mossa Raza (Dead) By Lrs.& … on 21 April, 2011","datePublished":"2011-04-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-11T22:43:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-shehla-burney-ors-vs-syed-ali-mossa-raza-dead-by-lrs-on-21-april-2011"},"wordCount":2583,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-shehla-burney-ors-vs-syed-ali-mossa-raza-dead-by-lrs-on-21-april-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-shehla-burney-ors-vs-syed-ali-mossa-raza-dead-by-lrs-on-21-april-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-shehla-burney-ors-vs-syed-ali-mossa-raza-dead-by-lrs-on-21-april-2011","name":"Dr. Shehla Burney & Ors vs Syed Ali Mossa Raza (Dead) By Lrs.& ... on 21 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-04-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-11T22:43:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-shehla-burney-ors-vs-syed-ali-mossa-raza-dead-by-lrs-on-21-april-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-shehla-burney-ors-vs-syed-ali-mossa-raza-dead-by-lrs-on-21-april-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-shehla-burney-ors-vs-syed-ali-mossa-raza-dead-by-lrs-on-21-april-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dr. Shehla Burney & Ors vs Syed Ali Mossa Raza (Dead) By Lrs.& … on 21 April, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/177306","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=177306"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/177306\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=177306"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=177306"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=177306"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}