{"id":22698,"date":"1966-02-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1966-02-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maqbool-alam-khan-vs-mst-khodaija-ors-on-4-february-1966"},"modified":"2015-05-27T21:34:16","modified_gmt":"2015-05-27T16:04:16","slug":"maqbool-alam-khan-vs-mst-khodaija-ors-on-4-february-1966","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maqbool-alam-khan-vs-mst-khodaija-ors-on-4-february-1966","title":{"rendered":"Maqbool Alam Khan vs Mst. Khodaija & Ors on 4 February, 1966"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Maqbool Alam Khan vs Mst. Khodaija & Ors on 4 February, 1966<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 1194, \t\t 1966 SCR (3) 479<\/div>\n
Author: R Bachawat<\/div>\n
Bench: Bachawat, R.S.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMAQBOOL ALAM KHAN\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMST.  KHODAIJA & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n04\/02\/1966\n\nBENCH:\nBACHAWAT, R.S.\nBENCH:\nBACHAWAT, R.S.\nSUBBARAO, K.\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\n\nCITATION:\n 1966 AIR 1194\t\t  1966 SCR  (3) 479\n\n\nACT:\nLis  pendens-Respondent's name expunged from title  suit  by\ncompromise  decree  in\tanother\t suit Whether\trespondent\nconstructively\t bound\tby  final  decree  in  title   suit.\nMohamedan law- Essential requirements of valid gift.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  Maharaja of Dumraon filed a rent suit against  some  of\nthe sharers in a tenure held under him of certain lands\t and\nat the sale in execution the tenure was purchased by one  L.\nN, the widow of one of the original co-sharers instituted  a\ntitle suit. (No. 127 of 1939) for a dad that  her  share  in\nthe tenure was not affected by the execution sale During the\npendency of this suit the Maharaja instituted a second\trent\nsuit  against L and at the sale in execution of\t the  decree\nthe respondent purchased the tenure and obtained possession.\nThe respondent was also impleaded as a party in N's suit and\na preliminary decree was passed.  Thereafter N died- and the\nappellant was substituted as the plaintiff in place of N  on\nthe ground that before her death N had made an oral gift  of\nher  share to him.  A final decree was then passed  and\t the\nappellant obtained possession of the land dispossessing\t the\nrespondent.   The respondent then instituted title suit\t No.\n126  of\t 1944  against\tthe  appellant\tand  others  for   a\ndeclaration  that the decree passed in suit No. 127 of\t1939\nwas  not  binding upon her.  The case was disposed of  by  a\ncompromise  de\twhereby the respondent's name  was  expunged\nfrom  the category of defendants in suit No. 127 though\t the\ndecree was to stand in other respects.\tThe respondent\tthen\napplied for restitution of the land under s. 144 of the Code\nof Civil Procedure and obtained possession.\nThe appellant thereafter filed the present suit against\t the\nrespondent and others for a declaration of his title to\t the\nland and contended, inter alia, (i) that by the doctrine  of\nlis  pendens the respondent was constructively bound by\t the\nfinal decree in suit No. 127 of 1939 in the presence of\t her\npredecessor-in-title  L;  and (ii) the\tdecree\tconclusively\ndeclared his title to the land on the basis of the oral gift\na to him by N.\nThe trial court decreed the appellants suit but on appeal to\nthe High Court the decree was set aside.  On appeal to\tthis\nCourt,\nHELD:  The appellant had no title to the suit  property\t and\nthe High Court had rightly dismissed the suit.\nThe  purpose  of the compromise decree in 'suit No.  126  of\n1944 was that the  respondent's name should be expunged from\nthe  array  of parties in suit No. 127 of 1939 so  that\t she\nshould\tnot  be\t bound by the decree  in  that\tsuit  either\nactually    or constructively.\nAn  application\t for restitution under s. 144 C.P.C.  is  an\napplication  for  execution of a decree\t and  therefore\t the\nprinciple  of  res-judicata  applies  to  such\tproceedings.\nAccordingly,  in  view of the restitution  obtained  by\t the\nrespondent, she, was not bound by the decree in suit No. 127\nof 1939. [482 G-H]\n480\nMahijibhai v. Manibhai [1965] 2 S.C.R. 436 applied.\nThe High Court had rightly held that the appellant failed to\nprove  the alleged oral gift and furthermore, the  gift\t was\nalso invalid.\nThe  three requirements of a valid gift under Mohamedan\t Law\nare  declaration,  acceptance and livery of  possession.   A\ngift of property in the possession of a lessee or  mortgagee\nor  a trespasser is not established by mere  declaration  of\nthe donor and acceptance by the donee.\tTo validat the\tgift\nthere  must also be delivery of possession, or failing\tsuch\ndelivery.  some overt act by the donor to put it within\t the\npower of the donee to obtain possession.  On the facts N had\ndone  nothing  after  the alleged declaration  to  place  it\nwithin\tthe power of the appellant to obtain  possess  sion.\n[483 G; 484 G; 485 B]\nCase law referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 629 of 1963.
\nAppeal\tfrom the judgment and decree dated April 3, 1961  of
\nthe Patna High Court in Appeal from Original Decree No.\t 327
\nof 1955.\n<\/p>\n
Sarjoo\tPrasad,\t R.  S. Sinha, and R.  C.  Prasad,  for\t the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
S.   C.\t Agarwal,  R.  K.  Garg,  D.  P.  Singh\t and  M.  K.
\nRamamurthi for respondent No. 1.\n<\/p>\n
K. R. Sinha, for respondents Nos. 16, 24 and 25.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nBachawat,  J:  Shaik Ahmad Ali was the holder  of  a  tenure
\nrecorded  in Khewat No. 4, tauzi No. 3309,  Mouza  Babhnaul,
\ncomprising  an\tarea of 83 82 acres under  the\tMaharaja  of
\nDumraon.  He died in 1910 leaving as his heirs,\t his  mother
\nWaziran,  his  second  wife  Elahijan,\tthree  sons  Amanat,
\nAshghar\t and Ashraf and two daughters born of Elahijan,\t and
\ntwo  sons  Hamid and Mahmud and four daughters born  of\t his
\nfirst wife Nabiban.  Though all the heirs of Shaik Ahmad Ali
\nWere cosharers of the tenure, the names of Hamid and  Mahmud
\nonly  were recorded as the tenure’holders in the  record  of
\nrights published in 1911. The Maharaja of Dumraon instituted
\nRent  Suit No. 13 of 1915 against Hamid and Mahmud only\t and
\nobtained  a  decree for rent.  The other  cosharers  of\t the
\ntenure\tincluding  Amanat  were not  parties  to  the  suit.
\nAmanat\tdied  in  1924.\t Before and after  1924\t there\twere
\nseveral\t litigations concerning the rights of the  cosharers
\nin  the tenure.\t Eventually, under a compromise,  Najma\t the
\nwife  of  Amanat got 2 annas 8 pies 10 krant  share  in\t the
\ntenure.\t  Subsequently,\t the  Maharaja of  Dumraon  put\t the
\ndecree\tin  Rent Suit No. 13 of 191.5  into  execution,\t and
\nLatafat, son of Ashgar by his first wife Safidan,  purchased
\nthe tenure at the execution sale.  In “October 1928, Latafat
\nobtained  possession  of the tenure through Court.   In\t May
\n1939, Najma instituted Title Suit No. 127 of\n<\/p>\n
481.
\n1939  against  Latafat, the Maharaja of Dumraon\t and  others
\nasking\tfor a declaration that her share in the\t tenure\t was
\nnot affected by the sale and for partition and possession of
\nher  share and mesne profits.  During the pendency  of\tthis
\nsuit, the Maharaja of Dumraon instituted Rent Suit No.\t1077
\nof 1939 against Latafat, obtained a decree for rent and\t put
\nthe  decree  into  execution.\tAt  the\t execution  sale  in
\nNovember   1940,  Khodaija,  the  second  wife\tof   Ashgar,
\npurchased the tenure.  Thereupon, Khodaija was impleaded as,
\na  party in Title Suit No. 127 of 1939.\t On July 9, 1942,  a
\ndecree\tdeclaring  the title of Najma to her  share  in\t the
\ntenure and a preliminary decree for partition were passed in
\nthat suit.  On August 9, 1942, Khodaija obtained delivery of
\npossession  of the tenure through Court on the basis of\t her
\npurchase  in  November 1940.  On February  26,\t1943,  Najma
\ndied.  On April 10, 1943, the appellant filed a petition  in
\nTitle Suit No. 127 of 1939 praying for substitution in place
\nof Najma on the ground that before her death Najma had\tmade
\nan  oral gift of her share to him.  On April 21,  1943,\t the
\nCourt\tpassed\tan  order  substituting\t the  appellant\t  as
\nplaintiff in the suit in place of Najma.  On June 14,  1943,
\na  final decree was passed in the suit.\t The  appellant\t was
\nallotted 19.54 acres of Ian out of the tenure.\tOn June\t 25,
\n1943,\tthe  appellant\tobtained  possession  of  the\tland
\ndispossessing  Khodaija.   Thereafter,\tKhodaija  instituted
\nTitle Suit No. 126 of 1944 against the appellant and  others
\nfor  a declaration that the decree passed in Title Suit\t No.
\n127 of’ 1939 were fraudulently obtained and were not binding
\nupon  her.. The trial Court dismissed the suit,\t on  appeal,
\nthe  first  appellate Court decreed the suit  and  a  second
\nappeal was disposed of by a compromise in these terms :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “1. That the name of the plaintiff No. 1 (that
\n\t      is  Khodaija) from the category of  defendants
\n\t      in  Title\t Suit  No.  127\t of  1939  shall  be
\n\t      expunged.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      2.    That  the decree (in Title Suit No.\t 127<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      of 1939) wilt stand in other respects.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      3.    That  the suit (that is, Title Suit\t No.
\n\t      126 of 1944) wilt stand dismissed.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In 1948, Khodaija applied for restitution of the land  under
\ns  144 of the Code of Civil Procedure.\tThe  Munsif  allowed
\nthe  application;  on  appeal,\tthe  first  Appellate  Court
\ndismissed it; and on second appeal, the High Court passed an
\norder  on  January  24, 1949  declaring\t that  Khodaija\t was
\nentitled to restitution and remanded the case to the Munsif.
\nOn  June 28, 1949, the Munsif directed restitution of  19.54
\nacres  of  land\t to Khodaija.  On  July\t 1,  1949,  Khodaija
\nobtained possession of the land through Court..
\nThereafter,  the  appellant  instituted\t the  present\tsuit
\nagainst Khodaija and others praying for a declaration of his
\ntitle to the-\n<\/p>\n
lll482
\naforesaid  land.  His case is that the suits  instituted  by
\nthe Maharaja of Dumraon were not rent suits and the sales in
\nexecution of those decrees were not rent sales, inasmuch  as
\nall the sharers of the tenure were not impleaded as  parties
\nto  those  suits,  the\tshare of Najma\tin  the\t tenure\t now
\nrepresented by the suit land-was not affected by the  sales,
\nand by an oral gift she gave the land to the appellant.\t The
\ntrial  Court  decreed the suit.\t On first appeal,  the\tHigh
\nCourt dismissed\t the suit.  The appellant now  appeals\tto
\nthis Court by .special leave.\n<\/p>\n
The  appellant rests his claim of title to the land upon  an
\nalleged oral gift by Najma.  Khodaija disputes the  factum
\nand  validity of the gift.  In\trejoinder,  the\t appellant
\ncontends  that\tby the doctrine of lis pendens\tKhodaija  is
\nconstructively\tbound  by the final decree passed  in  Title
\nSuit No. 127 of 1939 in the presence of her  predecessor-in-
\ntitle, Latafat and that the decree conclusively declared his
\ntitle  to the land on the basis of the oral gift  by  Najma.
\nKhodaija  gives\t a twofold answer to this  contention.\t She
\nsays  that (1) by the decree in Title Suit No. 126 of  1944
\nshe was held not to be a party to Title Suit No. 127 of 1939
\nand she is therefore not bound by the decree passed in\tthat
\nsuit, and (2) by the order of the High ,Court dated  January
\n24,  1949 and the final order of the Munsif dated  June\t 28,
\n1949 passed in the proceedings for restitution under s.\t 144
\nof the Code of Civil Procedure it was finally declared\tthat
\nshe  was  not bound by the decree in Title Suit No.  127  of
\n1939.\tThese contentions of Khodaija are sound and  should
\nbe  accepted.  The ,compromise decree in Title Suit No.\t 126
\nof  1944 provided that Khodaija’s name be expunged from\t the
\ncategory of defendants in Title Suit No. 127 of 1939, and in
\nother  respects\t the decree in that Suit would\tstand.\t The
\npurpose\t of the compromise decree was that  Khodaija’s\tname
\nshould\tbe expunged from the array of parties in Title\tSuit
\nNo.  127  of 1939, so that she\twould not be  bound  by\t the
\ndecree in that suit either actually or constructively.\tOn a const
\nruction of this decree, the High Court held on January\n<\/p>\n
24., 1949 in the proceedings for restitution that Khodaija’s
\nclaim  for restitution fell within the purview of S. 144  of
\nthe  Code  of Civil ‘Procedure and that “as a  result  of  a
\ncompromise,  the decree was set aside as against  her.”\t By
\nhis  final  order dated June 28, 1949  the  Munsif  directed
\nrestitution  on the basis of this finding.  In Mahjibhai  v.
\nManibhai<\/a>  (1),\tthis  Court  by a  majority  held  that\t an’
\n:application  for  restitution under s. 144 of the  code  of
\nCivil Procedure is an application for execution of a decree.
\nThe   principle\t of  res  judicata  applies   to   execution
\nproceedings.  it follows that Khodaija is not bound  by\t the
\ndecree in Title Suit No. 127 of 1939 :and is entitled to re-
\nagitate all the questions in issue in that suit.
\nThe  appellant must, therefore, establish his title  to\t the
\nland.  He  claims that after the  preliminary  decree  Najma
\norally gave
\n(1)  [1965] 2 S. C. R. 436.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    483<\/span><\/p>\n
him  her entire movable and immovable  properties  including
\nthe tenure, and she died after making over possession of the
\nsame.  She died leaving her father and mother as her  heirs.
\nBoth  herparents  filed petitions in Title Suit No.  127  of
\n1939  supporting  the  oral gift of  the  suit\tland.\tThis
\ncircumstance  favours the case of oral gift.  The  appellant
\nexamined  himself as a witness in this, case.  He said\tthat
\nthe  gift was made on  February 10, 1943 in the presence  of
\nhis parents.  His mother was alive, but she was not  exmined
\nas a witness.  The date of the gift was not mentioned in the
\nplaint\tor in any earlier document; 1 it was  disclosed\t for
\nthe first time in the witness-box, and even then, it was not
\nmade clear how he remembered the date in the absence of\t any
\nrecord.\t  In the petition filed by him on April 10, 1943  in
\nTitle Suit No. 127 of 1939 he had made a different case\t and
\nhad  stated that the gift was made a few months\t before\t her
\ndeath on February 26, 1943.  His case now is that Najma made
\na gift of her entire movable and immovable properties.\tThis
\ncase  was not made in the petitions filed in Title Suit\t No.
\n127  of 1939.  The particulars of the other  properties\t are
\nnot disclosed, nor is it shown that he ever took  possession
\nof  those properties.  In the plaint, he made the case\tthat
\nNajma  died  after making over possession of the  tenure  to
\nhim.   This  statement is, untrue, because  Najma  had\tbeen
\ndispossessed  of  the tenure in August 1942 and was  not  in
\npossession   of\t  it  at  the  time  of\t  thealleged   gift.
\nConsidering all the circumstances, the High Court held, and,
\nin  our opinion, rightly that the appellant failed to  prove
\nthe alleged oral gift.\n<\/p>\n
We  also  think\t that  the alleged  gift  was  invalid.\t  In
\nFebruary  1943,\t Yhodaija was in possession  of\t the  tenure
\nclaiming  it  adversely to Najma.  After the  alleged  gift,
\nNajma  neither\tgave  possession of the\t property,  nor\t did
\nanything  to  put it within the power of them  appellant  to
\nobtain possession.  The three pillars of a valid gift  under
\nthe  Mahomedan law are declaration, acceptance and  delivery
\nof possession.\tIn Mohammad Abdul Ghani v. Fakhr Jahan Begam
\nSir John Edge said :\n<\/p>\n
\t       “For  a\tvalid  gift inter  vivos  under\t the
\n\t      Mahomedan\t law applicable in this case,  three
\n\t      conditions   are\t necessary,   which,   their
\n\t      Lordships consider have been correctly  stated
\n\t      thus  (a) manifestation of the wish to  giveon
\n\t      the part of the donor; (b)     the  acceptance
\n\t      of  the donee either impliedly  or  expressly;
\n\t      and  (c)\tthe  taking  of\t possession  of\t the
\n\t      subject-matter  of  the  gift  by\t the  donee,
\n\t      either actually or constructively’  (Mahomedan
\n\t      Law,  by\tSyed Ameer Ali, 4th ed. vol.  i,  p.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      41).”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       The  Prophet has said : “A gift is not  valid
\n\t      without seisin.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       The rule of law is :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (1)  (1922) L. R. 49 1. A,, 195,209.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      484<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      “Gifts   are   rendered\tvalid\tby   tender,
\n\t      acceptance and’ seisin.-Tender and  acceptance
\n\t      are  necessary because a gift is\ta  contract,
\n\t      and tender and acceptance are requisite in the
\n\t      formation\t of  all contracts;  and  seisin  is
\n\t      necessary\t in  order to establish a  right  of
\n\t      property\tin  the\t gift, because\ta  right  of
\n\t      property,\t according  to our doctors,  is\t not
\n\t      established in the thing given merely by means
\n\t      of   the\tcontract,  without   seisin.”\t[See
\n\t      Hamilton’s Hedaya (Grady’s Edn), p. 482]
\nPreviously, the rule of law was thought to be so strict that
\nit  was\t said that land in the possession of a\tusurper\t (or
\nwrongdoer)  .,or of a lessee or a mortgagee cannot be  given
\naway,  see  Dorrul Mokhtar, Book on Gift, p.  635  cited  in
\nMullic\tAbdool\tGuffoor\t V. Muleka (1).\t But  the  view\t now
\nprevails that there can be a valid :gift of property in\t the
\npossession  of a lessee or, a mortgagee and a .gift  may  be
\nsufficiently made by delivering constructive possession of
\nthe property to the donee.  Some authorities still take\t the
\nview  that a property in the possession of a usurper  cannot
\nbe given away, but this view appears to us to be too rigid.
\nThe  donor  may lawfully make a gift of a  property  in\t the
\npossession of a trespasser.  ‘Such a gift is valid, provided
\nthe  donor  either  obtains  and  gives\t possession  of\t the
\nproperty  to  the donee or does all that he can\t to  put  it
\nwithin\tthe  power of the donee to  obtain  possession.\t  In
\nMahomed Buksh Khan v. Hosseini Bibi(2), Lord Macnaghten\n<\/p>\n
-said :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “In  this case it appears to  their  Lordships
\n\t      that the lady did all she could to perfect the
\n\t      contemplated  gift, and that nothing more\t was
\n\t      required from her.  The gift was attended with
\n\t      the  utmost  publicity, the  hibbanama  itself
\n\t      authorises the donees to take possession,\t and
\n\t      it   appears  that  in  fact  they  did\ttake
\n\t\t\t    possession.\t  Their Lordships hold und
\ner  these
\n\t      circumstances  that there can be no  objection
\n\t      to  the gift on the ground that  Shahzadi\t had
\n\t      not  possession, and that she herself did\t not
\n\t      give possession at the time.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
But  a gift of a property in the possession of a  trespasser
\nis not\testablished by mere declaration of the\tdonor  and
\nacceptance  by the donee.  To validate the gift, there\tmust
\nalso  be  either deli-very of possession,  or  failing\tsuch
\ndelivery,  some overt act by the donor to put it within\t the
\npower  of  the donee to obtain possession. If,\tapart  from
\nmaking a declaration, the donor does nothing else, the\tgift
\nis  invalid.  In Macnaghten’s Muhammadan Law, Precedents  of
\nGifts, Case No. VI, the question was :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “A person executed a deed of gift in favour of
\n\t      his   nephew,   conferring   upon\t  him\t the
\n\t      proprietary right to certain lands of which he
\n\t      (the  donor)  was not in\tpossession,  but  to
\n\t      recover
\n\t      (1) (1884) I.L.R. IO Cal. 1112., 1123.
\n\t      (2) ( 898) L. R. 15 T. A 81, 95.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      485<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      which he had brought an action, then  pending,
\n\t      against  his  wife…… About a\tmonth  after
\n\t      executing\t the deed, the donor died,  and\t the
\n\t      donee,  in virtue of the gift, lays  claim  to
\n\t      the    litigated\t property.    Under    these
\n\t      circumstances  is his claim, under  the  deed,
\n\t      allowable?”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
and  the answer was that the gift was null and the claim  of
\nthe  donee  was\t inadmissible.\t The  precedent\t covers\t the
\npresent\t  case.\t  Najma\t did  nothing  after   the   alleged
\ndeclaration, She did not even file a petition in, Title Suit
\nNo.  127  of  1939 mentioning the gift and  asking  for\t the
\nsubstitution  of the appellant in her place.  Had she  filed
\nsuch  a petition and submitted to an order of  substitution,
\nshe  would have placed it within the power of the  appellant
\nto  obtain possession of the property; but she did  nothing.
\nNor  did  the appellant obtain possession  of  the  property
\nduring\ther  life  time\t with her  consent.   The  gift\t is,
\ntherefore, invalid.\n<\/p>\n
It  follows  that  the appellant has no title  to  the\tsuit
\nproperty  and  the High Court rightly  dismissed  the  suit.
\nDuring the pendency of this appeal, one Babulal, an heir  of
\na co-lessee from Khodaija in respect of plot No. 1400, died,
\nand  the  appeal  has abated against  him.   The  respondent
\ncontended  that in the circumstances the entire\t appeal\t has
\nbecome\tdefective for non-joinder of necessary\tparties\t and
\nmust  be dismissed.  We think that the appeal, so far as  it
\nconcerns  plot\tNo. 1400, is defective for,  non-joinder  of
\nnecessary  parties,  but  the  rest of\tthe  appeal  is\t not
\ndefective  on  this  ground-.  But  for\t the  other  reasons
\nalready stated, the entire appeal is liable to be dismissed.
\nThe appeal is dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
 Appeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
486<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Maqbool Alam Khan vs Mst. Khodaija & Ors on 4 February, 1966 Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 1194, 1966 SCR (3) 479 Author: R Bachawat Bench: Bachawat, R.S. PETITIONER: MAQBOOL ALAM KHAN Vs. RESPONDENT: MST. KHODAIJA & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04\/02\/1966 BENCH: BACHAWAT, R.S. BENCH: BACHAWAT, R.S. SUBBARAO, K. HIDAYATULLAH, M. […]<\/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-22698","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMaqbool Alam Khan vs Mst. Khodaija & Ors on 4 February, 1966 - 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\/maqbool-alam-khan-vs-mst-khodaija-ors-on-4-february-1966\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Maqbool Alam Khan vs Mst. Khodaija & Ors on 4 February, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maqbool-alam-khan-vs-mst-khodaija-ors-on-4-february-1966\" \/>\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=\"1966-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-27T16:04:16+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maqbool-alam-khan-vs-mst-khodaija-ors-on-4-february-1966#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maqbool-alam-khan-vs-mst-khodaija-ors-on-4-february-1966\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Maqbool Alam Khan vs Mst. Khodaija & Ors on 4 February, 1966\",\"datePublished\":\"1966-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-27T16:04:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maqbool-alam-khan-vs-mst-khodaija-ors-on-4-february-1966\"},\"wordCount\":2517,\"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\\\/maqbool-alam-khan-vs-mst-khodaija-ors-on-4-february-1966#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maqbool-alam-khan-vs-mst-khodaija-ors-on-4-february-1966\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maqbool-alam-khan-vs-mst-khodaija-ors-on-4-february-1966\",\"name\":\"Maqbool Alam Khan vs Mst. Khodaija & Ors on 4 February, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1966-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-27T16:04:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maqbool-alam-khan-vs-mst-khodaija-ors-on-4-february-1966#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maqbool-alam-khan-vs-mst-khodaija-ors-on-4-february-1966\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maqbool-alam-khan-vs-mst-khodaija-ors-on-4-february-1966#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Maqbool Alam Khan vs Mst. Khodaija & Ors on 4 February, 1966\"}]},{\"@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":"Maqbool Alam Khan vs Mst. Khodaija & Ors on 4 February, 1966 - 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\/maqbool-alam-khan-vs-mst-khodaija-ors-on-4-february-1966","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Maqbool Alam Khan vs Mst. Khodaija & Ors on 4 February, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maqbool-alam-khan-vs-mst-khodaija-ors-on-4-february-1966","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1966-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-27T16:04:16+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maqbool-alam-khan-vs-mst-khodaija-ors-on-4-february-1966#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maqbool-alam-khan-vs-mst-khodaija-ors-on-4-february-1966"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Maqbool Alam Khan vs Mst. Khodaija & Ors on 4 February, 1966","datePublished":"1966-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-27T16:04:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maqbool-alam-khan-vs-mst-khodaija-ors-on-4-february-1966"},"wordCount":2517,"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\/maqbool-alam-khan-vs-mst-khodaija-ors-on-4-february-1966#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maqbool-alam-khan-vs-mst-khodaija-ors-on-4-february-1966","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maqbool-alam-khan-vs-mst-khodaija-ors-on-4-february-1966","name":"Maqbool Alam Khan vs Mst. Khodaija & Ors on 4 February, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1966-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-27T16:04:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maqbool-alam-khan-vs-mst-khodaija-ors-on-4-february-1966#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maqbool-alam-khan-vs-mst-khodaija-ors-on-4-february-1966"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maqbool-alam-khan-vs-mst-khodaija-ors-on-4-february-1966#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Maqbool Alam Khan vs Mst. Khodaija & Ors on 4 February, 1966"}]},{"@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\/22698","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=22698"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22698\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22698"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22698"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22698"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}