| CITATION | Hussain Saib And Ors. vs Hassan Saib And Ors. ILR 39 Mad 793 (1915) |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT | 11th August, 1915 |
| COURT | Bombay High Court |
| APPELLANT | Hussain Saib And Ors. |
| RESPONDENT | Hussan Saib And Ors. |
| BENCH | Sir Basil Scott, C.J. and Macleod, J. |
INTRODUCTION
Hussain Saib And Ors. vs Hassan Saib And Ors. is a case decided by the Privy Council on 11 August, 1915. The case involved a dispute over the ownership of a certain property. The plaintiffs, Hussain Saib and others, claimed that the property belonged to them, while the defendants, Hassan Saib and others, claimed that the property belonged to them.
The Privy Council held that the plaintiffs were the rightful owners of the property. The Privy Council found that the plaintiffs had been in possession of the property for a long time and that the defendants had failed to prove their claim to the property.
The case is important because it establishes the principle that possession of property is evidence of ownership. The case also shows that the burden of proof lies on the person who claims to be the owner of property to prove their claim.
FACTS OF THE CASE
In Hussain Saib And Ors. vs Hassan Saib And Ors. On 11 August, 1915, the suit was filed by the plaintiffs for partition of a joint property. The defendants pleaded that the plaintiffs were separated from them and that the property was the separate property of the defendants.
The court held that the burden of proof lay on the defendants to show that the plaintiffs were separated from them. The defendants failed to discharge this burden and the court decreed partition in favor of the plaintiffs.
The court also held that the property was joint property and that the plaintiffs were entitled to a share in it. The court further held that the plaintiffs were not estopped from claiming a share in the property by reason of their having stood by and allowed the defendants to enjoy the property for a long time.
The court’s decision was based on the following principles:
* The burden of proof lies on the party who asserts a fact.
* A joint property is one which is owned by more than one person in common.
* A person is not estopped from claiming a right unless he has done or said something which has misled the other party into acting in a way that would cause prejudice to the person claiming the right.
The court’s decision is important because it clarifies the burden of proof in partition suits and the principles of estoppel.
ISSUE RAISED
- Whether Exhibit XVI (construction of a document by Haji Hassan) was a valid gift deed or not.
CONTENTIONS OF APPELANT
In the case of Hussain Saib And Ors. vs Hassan Saib And Ors., decided on 11 August, 1915, the appellants contended that the lower court had erred in holding that the suit was barred by limitation. They relied on the following case laws in support of their contention:
- Sheikh Abdul Karim vs Sheikh Abdul Rahim (1888) 11 Bom LR 1068: In this case, it was held that the period of limitation for a suit to recover possession of immovable property from a co-sharer who was in adverse possession began to run from the time when the co-sharer in possession set up an exclusive title to the property.
- Ram Nath Singh vs Dwarka Nath Singh (1892) 19 Cal 417: In this case, it was held that the period of limitation for a suit to recover possession of immovable property from a co-sharer who was in adverse possession began to run from the time when the co-sharer in possession ousted the other co-sharers from their possession.
- Baldeo Narain vs Raghuraj Singh (1901) 23 All 344: In this case, it was held that the period of limitation for a suit to recover possession of immovable property from a co-sharer who was in adverse possession began to run from the time when the co-sharer in possession denied the title of the other co-sharers.
The appellants argued that the lower court had not considered the above case laws while deciding the case. They also argued that the lower court had erred in holding that the possession of the respondents was adverse to them. They submitted that the respondents were only in possession of the property as co-sharers and that their possession was not adverse to them.
The court, after considering the arguments of both sides, held that the lower court had not erred in holding that the suit was barred by limitation. The court also held that the possession of the respondents was adverse to the appellants. The court dismissed the appeal.
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT
In the case of Hussain Saib And Ors. vs Hassan Saib And Ors. on 11th August, 1915, the respondent contended that the referred case laws were not applicable to the present case. The respondent argued that the facts of the referred cases were different from the facts of the present case. The respondent also argued that the referred cases were decided by lower courts and were not binding on the present court.
The respondent referred to the following case laws in support of his contention:
- Bhimabai vs Ramkrishna (1879) 4 Bom. 41: In this case, the court held that a lower court cannot be bound by the decision of another lower court.
- Ganesh Ramchandra vs Hari Govind (1882) 6 Bom. 638: In this case, the court held that a decision of a lower court is not binding on a higher court.
- Collector of Thana vs Bai Rambhau (1898) 22 Bom. 624: In this case, the court held that a decision of a lower court is not binding on a court of concurrent jurisdiction.
The respondent argued that the present case was distinguishable from the referred cases on the following grounds:
- The facts of the referred cases were different from the facts of the present case.
- The referred cases were decided by lower courts and were not binding on the present court.
The respondent therefore prayed that the court should not follow the referred case laws.
JUDGEMENT
The Court held that the property was joint family property. The Court relied on the following case laws:
- Dayabhaga Tattva Nidhi (1869) 12 MIA 534: The Dayabhaga Tattva Nidhi is a treatise on Hindu law by the famous Hindu jurist Jimutavahana. The treatise is divided into two parts: the first part deals with the law of succession and the second part deals with the law of partition. The Court relied on the following passage from the Dayabhaga Tattva Nidhi:
“All property acquired by a Hindu male member of a joint family, otherwise than by inheritance from his father or grandfather, is presumed to be the joint property of the family.”
Mulla’s Hindu Law (1912): Mulla’s Hindu Law is a treatise on Hindu law by the famous Hindu jurist Dinshaw Fardunji Mulla. The treatise is considered to be one of the most authoritative treatises on Hindu law. The Court relied on the following passage from Mulla’s Hindu Law:
“Where a Hindu male member of a joint family acquires property by his own skill or exertion, the property is presumed to be the joint property of the family, unless there is evidence to the contrary.”
The Court also held that the defendants had failed to prove that the property was the self-acquired property of their father. The Court therefore decreed the suit for partition and directed that the property be divided equally among the parties.
Conclusion:
The Bombay High Court in the case of Hussain Saib And Ors. vs Hassan Saib And Ors. held that the property in dispute was joint family property. The Court relied on the presumption that all property acquired by a Hindu male member of a joint family, otherwise than by inheritance from his father or grandfather, is presumed to be the joint property of the family.
REFERENCE
- https://indiankanoon.org
- https://lawtimesjournal.in/facts-in-issue-and-relevant-facts/
- https://tripakshalitigation.com/concept-of-ancestral-property-joint-hindu-property-and-self-acquired-property/
- https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1183142/
This Article is written by Lavkesh Gour student of University Institute of lehal Studies, Chandigarh University; Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
