{"id":31385,"date":"2009-08-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/iliahkhan-vs-talayarkhan-on-20-august-2009"},"modified":"2016-03-29T22:15:09","modified_gmt":"2016-03-29T16:45:09","slug":"iliahkhan-vs-talayarkhan-on-20-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/iliahkhan-vs-talayarkhan-on-20-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"Iliahkhan vs Talayarkhan on 20 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Iliahkhan vs Talayarkhan on 20 August, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: P. R. Borkar<\/div>\n
                               1\n\n\n\n\n                                                             \n                                     \n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY \n                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD\n                  SECOND APPEAL NO.4 OF 1989\n\n\n\n\n                                    \n     1.   Iliahkhan s\/o Younuskhan\n     2.   Rahmunisabegum s\/o Yonuskhan\n\n\n\n\n                            \n          age major, occup. agril.\n          r\/of Parbhani.\n                   ig                 .. Appellants\/ori.\n                                         Plaintiffs\n                   versus\n                 \n     1.   Talayarkhan s\/o Sherkhan\n     2.   Eliaskhan s\/o Sherkhan\n      \n\n\n     3.   Ahmadkhan s\/o Sherkhan\n   \n\n\n\n          since deceased, thrhough\n          legal representatives:-\n\n\n\n\n\n     3(1) Nayar Khan Ahmed Khan\n          age 40 years,\n     3(2) Nadim Khan Ahmed Khan,\n\n\n\n\n\n          age 35 years,\n     3(3) Saleem Khan Ahmed Khan,\n          age 33 years,\n     3(4) Tasleem Khan Ahmed Khan\n          age 28 years,\n     3(5) Amjad Khan Ahmed Khan,\n          age 22 years.\n\n\n\n\n                                     ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:55:34 :::\n                                2\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n     4.   Sherkhan s\/o Gulabkhan,\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n          since deceased, through\n          legal representatives:-\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n     4(1) Talewar Khan s\/o Sherkhan\n          age 52 years, \n     4(2) Shoukat Khan s\/o Sherkhan \n\n\n\n\n                              \n          aqe 47 years,\n     4(3) Iliyas Khan s\/o Sherkhan,\n                 \n          age 43 years, \n     4(4) Ahmed Khan s\/o Sherkhan,\n                \n          since deceased, through\n          his legal representatives:-\n     4(1) Nayar Khan s\/o Ahmedkhan \n      \n\n\n     4(2) Nadeem Khan s\/o Ahmedkhan\n   \n\n\n\n     4(3) Saleem Khan s\/o Ahmedkhan \n     4(4) Tasleem Khan s\/o Ahmedkhan\n     4(5) Amjad Khan s\/o Ahmedkhan\n\n\n\n\n\n     4(6) Ilahi Khan s\/o Younuskhan\n          R\/of Lohagaon, Taluka and             Respondents\/\n          District Parbhani.                    ori.defendants\n\n\n\n\n\n     --------------------------------------------------\n     Shri S.V.Gangapurwala,Advocate,for the appellants.\n     Shri   P.V.Mandlik,   Senior   Counsel,   i\/by   Shri \n     Y.M.Khan, Advocate, for Respondents\n     --------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:55:34 :::\n                                   3\n\n\n\n                                      Coram: P.R. Borkar, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                      Date : August 20, 2009<\/p>\n
     ORAL JUDGDMENT <\/p>\n
     01.       This   Second   Appeal   is   filed   by   original
\n     Plaintiffs   whose   suit   for   declaration   and
\n     injunction   bearing   Regular   Civil   Suit   No.231   of <\/p>\n
     1983   was   dismissed   by   the   learned   Joint   Civil
\n     Judge,   Junior   Division,   Parbhnai   on   21.2.1986;\n<\/p>\n
     which judgment and decree is further confirmed by
\n     the   learned   District   Judge,   Parbhani   in   Regular <\/p>\n
     Civil Appeal No.74 of 1986 decided on 13.10.1988.\n<\/p>\n
     02.       Some   of   the   facts   giving   rise   to   this <\/p>\n
     litigation   and   admitted   at   this   stage   can   be <\/p>\n
     stated thus;\n<\/p>\n
               It   is   admitted   that   Respondent   No.4 <\/p>\n
     Sherkhan   was   the   father   of   original   Respondent
\n     Nos.   1   to   3   and   Younuskhan.     Younuskhan   is
\n     admittedly father of appellant No.1 and husband of <\/p>\n
     appellant No.2.     Pending this appeal, Respondent
\n     Nos.   3   and   4   have   died   and   their   legal
\n     representatives are brought on record.\n<\/p>\n
     03.       It   is   the   case   of   the   appellants-
\n     plaintiffs that in or about 1954, Respondent No.4
\n     Sherkhan orally gifted survey No.151 (Gat No.308) <\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:55:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                     4<\/span><\/p>\n
     and   Survey   No.202\/2   (Gat   No.459)   situated   at
\n     village Lohgaon, Taluka and District Parbhani. At <\/p>\n
     that   time,   Younuskhan   was   minor.     Younuskhan <\/p>\n
     continued to be in possession of the suit property
\n     till his death in 1969.   Thereafter appellants –
\n     plaintiffs,   who   were   his   son   and   widow <\/p>\n
     respectively, became owners and possessors of the
\n     suit   property.   Respondents   started   disturbing
\n     plaintiffs’     possession   by     challenging   their <\/p>\n
     ownership   and   hence,   the   suit   was   filed   for
\n     declaration and possession.\n<\/p>\n
     04.        Respondents-defendants              filed              their <\/p>\n
     written statement and denied that Respondent No.4
\n     Sherkhan   had   executed   any   gift   deed   or   Hiba     in
\n     favour   of   Younuskhan   in   respect   of   the   suit <\/p>\n
     property.   According   to   defendants,   in   or   about <\/p>\n
     1954, the two properties were entered in the name
\n     of   Younuskhan   who   then   was   minor,   to   avoid   the
\n     property   from   coming   into   the   clutches   of   the <\/p>\n
     Ceiling Act. According to the defendants, Sherkhan
\n     never transferred  or gifted the suit property in
\n     favour of Younuskhan. It is denied that initially <\/p>\n
     Younuskhan   and   after   his   death,   plaintiffs-
\n     appellants have been  the owners and possessors of
\n     the suit property.\n<\/p>\n
     05.        The   trial   court   and   the   first   appellate
\n     court  both  have    recorded  concurrent  findings  of
\n     fact   that   the   plaintiffs-appellants   failed   to <\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:55:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                   5<\/span><\/p>\n
     prove oral gift in favour of Younuskhan and also
\n     possession of Younuskhan over the suit property.\n<\/p>\n
     06.       Heard   learned   counsel   for   respective
\n     parties.   Shri   S.V.Gangapurwala,   learned   Counsel
\n     for   the   appellants,   relying   upon   certain <\/p>\n
     authorities,  argued  that   while considering the
\n     evidence   regarding   gift\/Hiba,   the   circumstantial
\n     evidence and probabilities   of the case were not <\/p>\n
     properly   considered   and   merely   because   there   was
\n     no  direct  oral  evidence regarding  Hiba, the case <\/p>\n
     of   the   appellants   was   wrongly   disbelieved.     He
\n     also   submitted   that   there   was   presumption <\/p>\n
     regarding   continuance   of   possession   after   the
\n     death   of   Younuskhan,   as   it   is   admitted   that
\n     Younuskhan   had   been     in   possession   of   suit <\/p>\n
     property during his life time.   Shri Gangapurwala <\/p>\n
     further   submitted   that   Respondent   No.4   Sherkhan
\n     was   estopped   from   denying   the   ownership   of
\n     Younuskhan.\n<\/p>\n
     07.       On   the   other   hand,   Shri   P.V.Mandlik,
\n     learned   Senior   Counsel,   argued   that   the   evidence <\/p>\n
     on record and certain admissions by the plaintiffs
\n     during   oral   evidence   indicate   that   there   was   no
\n     Hiba and the plaintiffs were not in possession of
\n     the suit property when the suit was filed.   It is
\n     also argued that the question of estoppel was not
\n     raised by the pleadings; there is no issue framed
\n     to that effect either in the trial court or before <\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:55:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                     6<\/span><\/p>\n
     the first appellate court and, therefore, the same
\n     cannot be argued now in the second appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     08.        This   second   appeal   was   admitted   vide
\n     order dated 3.2.1989, but no substantial questions
\n     of   law     were   framed   at   that   time.   However,   from <\/p>\n
     the   arguments   advanced   before   me,   following
\n     questions of law can be said to be arising in this
\n     second appeal.\n<\/p>\n
                (1) Whether, by circumstantial evidence, <\/p>\n
                plaintiffs-appellants               proved                that
\n                Respondent   No.4   Sherkhan   had   orally <\/p>\n
                gifted the suit land to Younuskhan ?\n<\/p>\n
                (2) Whether   the   presumption   regarding <\/p>\n
                possession         and        ownership                   from <\/p>\n
                longstanding          revenue   entries   and
\n                presumption   regarding   continuance   of
\n                state   of   affairs   have   been   properly <\/p>\n
                considered   by   the   trial   court   and   the
\n                first appellate court ?\n<\/p>\n
                (3)Whether   Respondent   No.4   Sherkhan   was
\n                estopped from denying title of Younuskhan
\n                in respect of the suit land ?\n<\/p>\n
     09.        I have heard both the learned counsel at
\n     length   on   the   aforesaid   substantial   questions   of <\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:55:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                     7<\/span><\/p>\n
     law.  So far as oral gift in favour of Younuskhnan
\n     is concerned, it appears that the gift is claimed <\/p>\n
     to have been made in or about 1954 when Younuskhan <\/p>\n
     was   minor.     When   the   suit   was   filed   in   1983,
\n     appellant No. 1 Iliahkhan  was 14 years of age and
\n     appellant   No.2   Rahimunisa     was   aged   35   years.\n<\/p>\n
     Rahimunisa  stated  in  her  deposition    recorded  on
\n     21.11.1985  at  Exh.79  that  her  husband  expired  15
\n     years before and her marriage took place 20 years <\/p>\n
     back.   So, appellant No. 2 married Younuskhan in
\n     or   about   1965.     So,   oral   gift   was   prior   to   her <\/p>\n
     marriage.     Rahimunisa   in   her   deposition   has   not
\n     claimed   that shehad been present at the time of <\/p>\n
     oral gift.  It is her say that  certain respectful
\n     persons and villagers were present at the time of
\n     gift. However, no witness on the point of gift is <\/p>\n
     examined.\n<\/p>\n
     10.         So far as revenue entries   are   concerned,
\n     the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court both <\/p>\n
     noted   that   since   1954   to   1968-69   name   of
\n     Younuskhan appears in the columns of ownership and
\n     possession  of the suit properties.  Advocate Shri <\/p>\n
     S.V.   Gangapurwala   submitted   that   in   the   Khasra
\n     Patrak  and  Pahani  patrak,  name  of  Younuskhan  was
\n     mutated.  However,   this mutation and the entries
\n     in   the   revenue   record   only   indicate   that
\n     Younuskhan  got  the  property by  way  of  partition.
\n     Therefore, revenue record does not show that there
\n     was   any   gift   by   Respondent   No.4   in   favour   of <\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:55:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                     8<\/span><\/p>\n
     deceased Younuskhan.\n<\/p>\n
     11.          As per Section 52 of the Mahomedan Law <\/p>\n
     (Mulla’s   Principles   of   Mahomedan   Law,   19th
\n     edition),   there   is   no   recognition   of   right   by
\n     birth   in   property   held   by   father   or   forefather.\n<\/p>\n
     There could be right either by inheritance or by
\n     bequest  as per Section 53 of the said Act. Unlike
\n     Hindu   Law,   there   is   no   concept   of   co-parcenery <\/p>\n
     property  under  the  Mahomedan  Law.  Therefore,   it
\n     cannot be said that  Younuskhan, the minor son of <\/p>\n
     Respondent   No.   4   Sherkhan,   had   any   right   or
\n     interest  in the property  of Sherkhan  during life <\/p>\n
     time   of   Sherkhan.     It   cannot   be   said   that   the
\n     trial   court   and   the   first   appellate   court
\n     committed   any   error   in   holding   that   Younuskhan <\/p>\n
     could   not   get   any   title   on   the   basis   of   alleged <\/p>\n
     partition.   Partition could be between co-sharers
\n     or   persons   having   interest   in   joint   property.
\n     Respondent No. 4 in his evidence deposed that with <\/p>\n
     a   view   to   avoid   the   suit   land   coming   under   the
\n     clutches of the Tenancy Act, he had orally   told
\n     talathi   to   enter   the   suit   land   in   the   name   of <\/p>\n
     Younuskhan.  It is pointed out to me that in  the
\n     written statement, defendants have stated that the
\n     name of Younuskhan was entered by Respondent No.4
\n     only   to   avoid   the   land   being   taken   by   the
\n     government under the Ceiling Act. But, neither of
\n     these   statements   help   the   plaintiffs   in   proving
\n     their   case   of   Hiba.     Thus,   there   is   no   oral   or <\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:55:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                    9<\/span><\/p>\n
     documentary   evidence   regarding   Hiba   (oral   gift)
\n     and the circumstances  do  not  indicate  that  there <\/p>\n
     must be Hiba.\n<\/p>\n
     12.        Shri   Gangapurwala,   learned   counsel   for
\n     the appellants  submitted  that  as  per  Section  149 <\/p>\n
     of Mahomedan Law (Mulla’s Principles of Mahomedan
\n     Law   referred   to   above),   three   essential
\n     requirements   are   to   be   complied   with     for   the <\/p>\n
     purpose of gift. Those are:\n<\/p>\n
                (1) a declaration of gift by the donor,<\/p>\n
                (2) an   acceptance   of   the   gift,   express
\n                or implied, by or on behalf of the donee,
\n                and;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (3) delivery of the gift.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     13.        Had   there   been   evidence   either   in   the <\/p>\n
     form of revenue record or oral evidence that there
\n     was   a   declaration   of   gift   by   Respondent   No.4   in
\n     favour of Younuskhan, it could have been presumed <\/p>\n
     that   there   was   acceptance   of   gift   by   mother   of
\n     Younuskhan   (minor)   on   his   behalf   and   implied
\n     delivery   of   possession   to   her.   Admittedly
\n     Younuskhan was in possession of the suit property
\n     during his life time.\n<\/p>\n
     14.        Learned counsel for the appellants relied <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:55:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                   10<\/span><\/p>\n
     upon   certain   authorities.   In  B.S.V.Temple   vs.
\n     P.Krishna   Murthi   AIR<\/a>   1973   SC   1299  and   more <\/p>\n
     particularly paragraphs 5, 6 and 8 thereof, it has <\/p>\n
     been  laid  down  that the presumption arising from
\n     several   entries   in   the   revenue   record   of   large
\n     number   of   years   in   respect   of   ownership   and <\/p>\n
     possession   of   land   with   certain   person   does   not
\n     stand rebutted by mere stray entries in favour of
\n     others when the evidence is of uncertain character <\/p>\n
     and is inadequate.\n<\/p>\n
     15.<\/p>\n
               Second   case   cited   is  Shikharchand   vs.
\n     D.J.P.   Karini   Sabha   AIR<\/a>   1974   SC   1178.    After <\/p>\n
     referring  to  Section  45 of  the  Central  Provinces
\n     Land Revenue Act, 1917, it is laid down in para 5
\n     that the entries in the record of rights shall be <\/p>\n
     presumed   to   be   correct   unless   the   contrary   is <\/p>\n
     shown  and  there is  presumption  of  correctness  of
\n     the   Khasra   entries     and   therefore   burden   of
\n     proving adverse possession is a heavy one on the <\/p>\n
     person alleging so.\n<\/p>\n
     16.       The   third   case   on   the   same   point   of <\/p>\n
     presumption   of   revenue   entries,   is  Shekoji   vs.
\n     Motiram<\/a>   2007   (1)Mh.L.J.   747.  In   paragraph   10   of
\n     the judgment, it has been laid down that the oral
\n     evidence of the plaintiffs regarding partition is
\n     reinforced   by   mutation   entry   No.430.   Under   the
\n     provisions   of   Hindu   Law,   oral   partition   is
\n     permissible. It is an usual mode in agrarian Hindu <\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:55:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                    11<\/span><\/p>\n
     community   to   effect   oral     partition   of   the
\n     agricultural   lands   by     referring   to   their   local <\/p>\n
     names   and then such oral partition is   reported <\/p>\n
     to the revenue authorities for effecting mutation.\n<\/p>\n
     17.        In the present case, in view of peculiar <\/p>\n
     position  under  the  Mahomedan  Law,  where there  is
\n     absence   of   right   by   birth   in   a   property,   the
\n     theory   of   partition   cannot   be   accepted.     For <\/p>\n
     partition,   a   person   must   have   some   interest   or
\n     share   in   the   property.   Moreover,   except     the <\/p>\n
     mutation of 1954, there is no document on record
\n     to show how Younuskhan obtained title to the suit <\/p>\n
     property. As stated earlier, there is no oral or
\n     documentary  evidence on record regarding Hiba.\n<\/p>\n
     18.        Learned Counsel for the appellant argued <\/p>\n
     that   it   is   admitted   by   the   respondents   in   their
\n     evidence that Younuskhan was in possession of the
\n     suit property during his life time and, therefore, <\/p>\n
     it   should   be   presumed   that   after   his   death,   his
\n     heirs   (plaintiffs-appellants)   continued   to   be   in
\n     possession   of   the   suit   properties   and   for   the <\/p>\n
     purpose,  reliance  is  placed on  Ambika  Prasad vs.
\n     Ram   Ekbal   Rai   AIR   1966   SC   605.  In   paragraph   15,
\n     the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down that there could
\n     be   presumption     of   continuance   that   may   operate
\n     retrospectively   or   prospectively.   The   rule   that
\n     the   presumption   of   continuance   may   operate
\n     retrospectively has been  recognized    and  by this <\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:55:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                    12<\/span><\/p>\n
     rule of evidence one can presume the continuity of
\n     things backward or forward.   It has further been <\/p>\n
     observed   that   the   presumption   of   continuity <\/p>\n
     weakens with the passage of time and how far the
\n     presumption   may   be   drawn   both   backwards   and
\n     forwards depends upon the nature of the things and <\/p>\n
     the surrounding circumstances.\n<\/p>\n
     19.        In the present case, it has come in the <\/p>\n
     evidence   that   from   1954   to   1968-69,   the   revenue
\n     entries   showed   the   name   of   Younuskhan   and   after <\/p>\n
     his death,  plaintiffs’  names  were  entered  in  the
\n     revenue   record   as   owners   and   possessors   of   the
\n     suit   property.   So,   ordinarily,   we   could   have <\/p>\n
     presumed that   the plaintiffs continued to be in <\/p>\n
     possession of the property till filing of the suit
\n     in 1983.   However,   we   find   certain   admissions   by
\n     plaintiff   No.2   in   her   cross   examination   which <\/p>\n
     raises   some     doubts   and   which   prevent   us   from
\n     drawing   any   presumption   about   continuity   of
\n     possession   of   the   plaintiffs-appellants   over   the <\/p>\n
     suit property.\n<\/p>\n
     20.        Plaintiff   No.2   Rahimunisa   begum   has
\n     stated in her deposition that after the death of
\n     Younuskhan, she along with plaintiff No.1 went to
\n     reside   at   her   parents’   house.   In   paragraph   5   of
\n     her deposition  at  Exh.70,  she  has  further  stated <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:55:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                    13<\/span><\/p>\n
     that   she   had   sown   cotton   crop   on   four   occasions
\n     during   previous   15   years.     (Her   statement   was <\/p>\n
     recorded on 21.11.1985).  She further deposed that <\/p>\n
     she had not sold  cotton at any time and could not
\n     get   yield   from   the   land   due   to   obstruction   by
\n     defendants during previous 15 years.   She further <\/p>\n
     admitted   that   she   had   no   Naukarnama   of   any
\n     servant, although in the examination in chief she
\n     deposed that she was cultivating the land through <\/p>\n
     servant.     She   further   deposed   that   she   did   not
\n     reside at Lohagaon at any time after the demise of <\/p>\n
     her husband and she had been residing at Parbhani.
\n     Both   trial   court   and   the   first   appellate   court <\/p>\n
     noted   that   thus,   the   plaintiffs   were   not   in
\n     possession of the suit property as on the date of
\n     filing   of   the   suit   or   just   prior   to   that.     No <\/p>\n
     witness   is   examined   by   plaintiffs   to   show   their <\/p>\n
     possession over the suit property.   It is pointed
\n     out   that   the   land   remained   fallow   only   after
\n     temporary   injunction   was   obtained   by   the <\/p>\n
     plaintiffs in the suit.  In other words, all these
\n     circumstances   clearly   show   that   the   defendants
\n     must be in possession of the suit property after <\/p>\n
     the   death   of   Younuskhan.     Both   the   courts   below
\n     have   concurrently   held   that   the   plaintiffs   have
\n     failed   to   prove   their   possession   over   the   suit
\n     property.\n<\/p>\n
     21.        The plaintiffs never came out with a case
\n     of   adverse   possession   during   life   time   of <\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:55:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                    14<\/span><\/p>\n
     Younuskhan   even   as   an   alternate   plea   so   as   to
\n     perfect his\/their title over suit lands by adverse <\/p>\n
     possession.     As   regards   plea   of   estoppel,   in   my <\/p>\n
     opinion, it is a mixed question of law and facts
\n     and   therefore   there   should   have   been   pleadings.
\n     There   should   have   been   issue   before   the   trial <\/p>\n
     court on that aspect and in absence of such issue
\n     either   before   the   trial   court   or   the   first
\n     appellate court, it would not be proper to raise <\/p>\n
     the   same   now   for   the   first   time   in   this   second
\n     appeal. Moreover, assuming that such issue can be <\/p>\n
     considered by this court in the second appeal for
\n     the   first   time,   yet     there   is   nothing   on   record <\/p>\n
     to   show   that   the   doctrine   of   estoppel   operated
\n     against   Respondent   No.4   Sherkhan.     All   that
\n     Sherkhan   represented   before   the   revenue <\/p>\n
     authorities   was   that   the   lands   were   allotted   to <\/p>\n
     Younuskhan   in   partition.     There   is   nothing   on
\n     record, to  show that  any  representation was made
\n     to Younuskhn or to the present appellants on the <\/p>\n
     basis   of   which   Younuskhan   or   present   appellants
\n     changed   their   position   adverse   to   their   interest
\n     as required by Section 115 of the Evidence Act.\n<\/p>\n
     22.        In   this   view   of   the   matter,   in   my
\n     opinion,   second   appeal   cannot   be   allowed.     The
\n     findings recorded by the two courts below do not
\n     require   any   interference   by   this   court.     Hence,
\n     second   appeal   is   dismissed.       Parties   to   bear
\n     their own costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:55:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                   15<\/span><\/p>\n
     23.        At   this   stage,   learned   Advocate   Shri <\/p>\n
     S.V.Gangapaurwala prays that the interim order of <\/p>\n
     injunction   be   continued.     However,   the   trial
\n     court,     the   first   appellate   court   and   even   this
\n     court   have   come     to   the   conclusion   that   the <\/p>\n
     plaintiffs   are   not   in   possession   of   the   suit
\n     property and, therefore, the prayer is rejected.\n<\/p>\n
     pnd\/sa4.89      ig                     (P.R.BORKAR, J.)\n                   \n      \n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                           ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:55:34 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Iliahkhan vs Talayarkhan on 20 August, 2009 Bench: P. R. Borkar 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.4 OF 1989 1. Iliahkhan s\/o Younuskhan 2. Rahmunisabegum s\/o Yonuskhan age major, occup. agril. r\/of Parbhani. ig .. Appellants\/ori. Plaintiffs versus 1. Talayarkhan s\/o Sherkhan 2. […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-31385","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nIliahkhan vs Talayarkhan on 20 August, 2009 - 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\/iliahkhan-vs-talayarkhan-on-20-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Iliahkhan vs Talayarkhan on 20 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/iliahkhan-vs-talayarkhan-on-20-august-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-08-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-29T16:45:09+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\\\/iliahkhan-vs-talayarkhan-on-20-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/iliahkhan-vs-talayarkhan-on-20-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Iliahkhan vs Talayarkhan on 20 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-29T16:45:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/iliahkhan-vs-talayarkhan-on-20-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2457,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/iliahkhan-vs-talayarkhan-on-20-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/iliahkhan-vs-talayarkhan-on-20-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/iliahkhan-vs-talayarkhan-on-20-august-2009\",\"name\":\"Iliahkhan vs Talayarkhan on 20 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-29T16:45:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/iliahkhan-vs-talayarkhan-on-20-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/iliahkhan-vs-talayarkhan-on-20-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/iliahkhan-vs-talayarkhan-on-20-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Iliahkhan vs Talayarkhan on 20 August, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Iliahkhan vs Talayarkhan on 20 August, 2009 - 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\/iliahkhan-vs-talayarkhan-on-20-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Iliahkhan vs Talayarkhan on 20 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/iliahkhan-vs-talayarkhan-on-20-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-29T16:45:09+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\/iliahkhan-vs-talayarkhan-on-20-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/iliahkhan-vs-talayarkhan-on-20-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Iliahkhan vs Talayarkhan on 20 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-29T16:45:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/iliahkhan-vs-talayarkhan-on-20-august-2009"},"wordCount":2457,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/iliahkhan-vs-talayarkhan-on-20-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/iliahkhan-vs-talayarkhan-on-20-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/iliahkhan-vs-talayarkhan-on-20-august-2009","name":"Iliahkhan vs Talayarkhan on 20 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-29T16:45:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/iliahkhan-vs-talayarkhan-on-20-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/iliahkhan-vs-talayarkhan-on-20-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/iliahkhan-vs-talayarkhan-on-20-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Iliahkhan vs Talayarkhan on 20 August, 2009"}]},{"@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\/31385","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=31385"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31385\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=31385"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=31385"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=31385"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}