IN THE COURT OF ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER AT TUMKUR

RRT (APL) TUMKUR 2007-2008

BETWEEN

1. AMMANULLAH KHAN S/O BUDDAN KHAN 80 YEARS

RESIDENT OF GANGONAHALLI HEBBUR HOBLI

TUMKUR TALUK.

2. EJAS KHAN

S/O AMMANULLAH KHAN 37 YEARS

RESIDENT OF GANGONAHALLI HEBBUR HOBLI

TUMKUR TALUK.

. ..... APPELLANTS

V/S

1. TAHSILDAR TUMKUR TALUK TUMKUR

2. SHAHEEDA KAHANUM W/O ANWAR KHAN AGED 45 YEARS

RESIDENT OF GANGONAHALLI HEBBUR HOBLI

TUMKUR TALUK.

3. AHMED ALI KHAN

S/O SABDAR ALI KHAN AGED 60 YEARS

RESIDENT OF GANGONAHALLI HEBBUR HOBLI

TUMKUR TALUK.

4. ABDUL WAHID KHAN

S/O SABDAR ALI KHAN AGED 65 YEARS

RESIDENT OF GANGONAHALLI HEBBUR HOBLI

TUMKUR TALUK.

....... RESPONDENTS

APPEAL UNDER SECTION

OF KARNATAKA LAND

REVENUE ACT:

The address of the Appellants for the purpose of

service of summons and notices of this Hon' ble Court

is as stated above in the cause title. The appellants may also be served through his Counsels. The address

of the Respondents for the purpose of service of

summons and notices of this Hon'ble Court is as stated above in the cause title.

1. The below stated schedule property originally belongs to Sarvar Khan Bin Mohsin Khan. The GTree of decendants of Mr Sarvar Khan is produced as Annexure-A

2. In the year 1968-69 some village accountants or in later period some village accountants has over written the name of Sabdar ali-Khan and others in column 9 without any mutation in respect to it.

3. It is not within the knowledge of this appellant or his ancestors the illegal entries in RTC records. Recently when Ahmed Ali Khan and his men tried to enter our schedule land, this appellant verified all the revenue records to know how the phani entries were made.

4. To the surprise of this appellant illegal phani

entries were made and manupulating intention to nab appellants.

5. Neither Sabdar Ali Khan or his decendants have any valid title to the suit schedule property and

in old records by over-writing the official records with an the land belonged to this

are not in actual possession also are tryingh to disturb this lawful owner with back door entry in revenue records.

6. The challenged M.R. 1/86-87

is made against the

rules and regulations. The notice is not issued to true legal owner. The alleged OS 68/77 is

shown

on

record

there

is

no

final

Decree

proceedings sui ts to

Number which is

essential

in civil

partition

estate

by the

revenue

authorities under the guidance of civil court.

7. The revenue authorities has not taken real owner and possessee into record to make the alleged mutation register entry. It is a violation of Principles of Natural Justice.

8. The persons who may have took partition in os 68/77 is in no way related to Sarvar Khan and they have colluded together to illegally knock of the property of Sarvar Khan and his decendants without having any valid title deed or possession.

9. In M. R. 22/2002-2003 again the respondents made an effort to change mutation entry without any valid grounds and they are creating innumerable revenue records at the back of this appellant just to knock off the property.

10. The said MR entries and stray entries in 1968-69 are to be quashed since it is made with

collusion and officials.

11. Again in MR 22/2002-2003 respondents has shown some panchayathi parikathu of 1994 to get

corruption

of

lower

revenue

mutation in 2002-03 all these illegal entries are prima facie proof of corrupt practice of lower revenue officials in collution with respondents violating the law.

12. From 1968-69 to till date Sarvar Khan and

his descendants Kareem bhi, Ammanullah Khan names are there in collumn 9 & 12 of RTC but in 1983 - 84 onwards there is illegal entries of a stranger Shahida Khanum and Abdul Wahid later name of Ahmed Ali Khan. All these latwer entries and adding of parties to RTC are without the cionsent of true and lawfull owner in possession of land.

Where fore it is humbly prayed before this Hon'ble court to set aside MR 1/86-87 and MR 22/2002-2003 and order restoration of Ammanullah Khan in the column numbetr 9 and 12 of RTC rspecti vely in Survey number 31/1 of Gangonahalli grama, Hebur hobli,Tumkur taluk.

Schedule Property

All the piece and parcel of Agricultural property situated at Tumkur Taluk, Hebbur hobli, Gangonahalli grama in survey number 31/1 totally measuring 1 acre 38 Guntas out of it 8 guntas Kharab bounded on by East: appellants sy no 45/2 land

West: Bhaiju's land

North: Hameed Khan land

South: Road.

ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANTS

APPELLANTS

V E R I F I CAT ION

WE, Sri Al-ll1ANULLAH KHAN, AND EJAS KHAN, the Appellants above named do hereby declare that what is stated above is true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

PLACE:

DATED:

TUMKUR

Appellants

IN THE COURT OF ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER AT TUMKUR

RRT (APL) TUMKUR 2007-2008

BETWEEN:

Mr. AMMANULLAH KHAN AND ANOTHER ....

APPELLANT

AND:

TAHSILDAR TUMKUR AND OTHERS .....

RESPONDENTS

LIST OF DOCUMENTS

PLACE : Tillv1KUR DATED:

ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT

IN THE COURT OF ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER AT TUMKUR lA.No.

In

RRT (APL) TUMKUR 2007-2008

BETWEEN:

Mr. AMMANULLAH KHAN AND ANOTHER ....

APPELLANT

AND:

TAHSILDAR TUMKUR AND OTHERS .....

RESPONDENT

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 25 R/W SECTION 55 OF KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT:-

The Applicant/APPELLANT

in

the

above

case

most

respectfully submits that, for the reasons sworn to in

the accompanying affidavit, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant an exparte ad-interim Order of STAY

OF MR 1/86-87 AND MR 22/2002-03 AND FICTITIOUS RTC

ENTRIES IN BELOW MENTIONED SCHEDULE PROPERTY, pending

disposal of the above case, in the interest of justice

and equity.

Schedule Property

All the piece and parcel of Agricultural property situated at Tumkur Taluk, Hebbur hobli, Gangonahalli grama in survey number 31/1 totally measuring 1 acre 38 Guntas out of it 8 guntas Kharab bounded on by East: appellants sy no 45/2 land

West: Bhaiju's land

North: Hameed Khan land

South: Road.

PLACE: TUMKUR

DATED: ADVOCATE FOR APPLICANT

IN THE COURT OF ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER AT TUMKUR lA.No.

In

RRT (APL) TUMKUR 2007-2008

BETWEEN:

Mr. AMMANULLAH KHAN AND ANOTHER .... AND:

APPELLANT

TAHSILDAR TUMKUR AND OTHERS .....

RESPONDENT

AFFIDA VIT

I, Mr, EJAZ KHAN son of AMMANULLAH KHAN, Aged about 37 years, residing at GANGONAHALLI HEBBUR HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows

1. I submit, that, I am the APPELLANT in the above case. I am well conversant with the facts of the case. Hence, I am swearing to the contents of this affidavit.

2. I submit, that, I have filed the above appeal

against the RESPONDENTS questioning illegal entries in RTC's and fake Mutations without any registered deed. Further, I submit that, the averments made in the appeal may kindly be read as part and parcel of this affidavit in order to avoid repetition of the facts.

3. I submit, that, I have produced Encumbrance

certificate for the schedule property wherein there is no deeds from 1-4-1968 to 6-8-2007 this shows that the entries made in RTC are fraudulently made with an intention to take away this valuable land of applicants family.

- 2 -

4. Further I submit, that, we have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Schedule Property without any let or hindrance from any body by exercising all rights of ownership by paying the taxes of the suit Schedule Property.

5. I submit, that, when things stood thus, the Defendant 2 TO 4 who has no any manner of right, title and interest over the suit Schedule Property is planning to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit Schedule Property by having fictitious entry in RTC.

6. Further I submit, that, the Defendant herein is bent upon to dispossess me from the suit Schedule Property and forcibly occupy the suit Schedule Property from me. I submit, that, I have no other alternative and efficacious remedy other than to approach this Hon'ble Court for the relief of STAY OF RTC'S ENTRIES restraining the Defendant 2 to 4 and her henchmen from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Schedule Property

based upon

such

fictitious

entries.

Hence this

interlocutory application ..

7. I submit that, if the RTC ENTRIES IS NOT STAYED by means of Temporary Injunction from interfering with my peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit Schedule Property in any manner whatsoever pending disposal of this suit, I will be put to very great hardship, irreparable loss and injury, which cannot be equated in terms of money or monies worth. If the order of Temporary Injunction is passed in my favour no harm or injury will be caused to the other side.

8. I submit that, I have made out a prima facie case. The balance of convenience fully lies in my favour. If the interim order of Temporary Injunction is granted in my favour no harm will be caused to the

other side. Hence, this Interlocutory Application for interim order, restraining the Defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit Schedule Property BY STAY OF RTC ENTRIES AND MUTATION.

WHEREFORE, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, I respectfully pray, that, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant an order of Temporary STAY MR 1/86-87 and MR 22/2002-2003 of the suit Schedule Property pending disposal of the suit in the interest of the justice and equity.

I the deponent herein, do hereby declare that, this is my name, signature and contents of the affidavit are true and correct to the best 0 f my knowl edge, information and belief.

PLACE DATED:

TUMKUR

DEPONENT

Identified by me

Advocate

IN THE COURT OF ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER AT TUMKUR lA.No.

in

RRT (APL) TUMK.UR 2007-2008

BETWEEN:

Mr. AMMANULLAH KHAN AND ANOTHER ....

PLAINTIFF

AND:

TAHSILDAR TUMKUR AND OTHERS .....

DEFENDANT

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION SECTION 5 OF

LIMITATION ACT:-

The Applicant/APPELLANT in the above case most respectfully submits that, for the reasons sworn to in the accompanying affidavit, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to delay if any in filing this appeal, in the interest of justice and equity.

PLACE: TUMKUR DATED:

ADVOCATE FOR APPLICANT

IN THE COURT OF ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER AT TUMKUR lA.No.

in

RRT (APL) TUMK.UR 2007-2008

BETWEEN:

Mr. AMMANULLAH KHAN AND ANOTHER .... AND:

APPELLANT

TAHSILDAR TUMKUR AND OTHERS .....

RESPONDENT

AFFIDA VIT

I, Mr, EJAZ KHAN son of AMMANULLAH KHAN, Aged about 37 years, residing at GANGONAHALLI HEBBUR HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows

1. I

submit, that, I am the APPELLANT in the above I am well conversant with the facts of the Hence, I am swearing to the contents of this

case.

case.

affidavit.

2. I submit, that, I have filed the above appeal against the RESPONDENTS questioning illegal entries in RTC's and fake Mutations without any registered deed. Further, I submit that, the averments made in the appeal may kindly be read as part and parcel of this affidavit in order to avoid repetition of the facts.

3. I submit, that, I have produced Encumbrance certificate for the schedule property wherein there is no deeds from 1-4-1968 to 6-8-2007 this shows that the entries made in RTC are fraudulently made with an

intention

to

take

away

this

valuable

land

of

applicants family.

4. The entries in RTC's were made behind the back of this appellants and due to non verification of it and due to illeteracy it is timely not found and recently when the respondents made unlawfull entry it came to this appellants knowledge. From the date of knowledge the appeal is filed in time if there is any delay kindly condone the delay in the interest of justice.

WHEREFORE, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, I respectfully pray, that, this Hon'ble Court be pleased delay if any in filing this appeal in the interest of the justice and equity.

I the deponent herein, do hereby declare that, this is my name, signature and contents of the affidavit are true and correct to the best 0 f my knowl edge, information and belief.

PLACE DATED:

TUMKUR

DEPONENT

Identified by me

Advocate

IN THE COURT OF ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER AT TUMKUR

RRT(APL) TUMKUR: 264/2007-2008

APPELLANTS

VS

RESPONDENT TAHSILDAR & OTHERS

AMMANULLAH KHAN & ANOTHER

WRITTEN ARGUMENTS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS:-

13. The schedule property stated in appeal memo originally belongs to Sarvar Khan Bin Mohsin Khan. The G- Tree of decendants of Mr Sarvar Khan is produced as Annexure-A and the relevant extracts of RTC of previous old years show that Mr Sarvar Khan is the owner of schedule property. The G- Tree produced shows that 1st appellant is son-in-law and 2nd appellant is grandson of Mr Sarvar Khan. Ther respondents neither dispute the relation ship of appellants with Mr Sarvar Khan. The respondents only dispute that Mr Sarvar Khan is not the owner of land, however the revenue documents of old years speak otherwise and show that Mr Sarvar Khan is the owner of property and the names of Sabdar Ali Khan is over written in RTC without any mutation is a prima facie documentary fact. In C.N. Nagendra Singh vs The Special Deputy Commissioner And Ors. (ILR 2002 KAR 2750) The Honble High court of Karnataka Held that : "The decision of the Revenue Courts has to be necessarily based on the undisputed facts."

14. In the year 1968-69 some village accountants or in later period some village accountants has over written the name of Sabdar ali-Khan and others in column 9 without any mutation in respect to it, is a fact that can be easily inferred from the records of the case. In [agat Dhish Bhargava vs Jawahar Lal Bhargava & Others (AIR 1961 SC 832) the Hon'ble Supreme court of India held that "There can be no doubt that the litigant deserves to be protected against the default committed or negligence shown by the Court or its officers in discharge of their duties and it is one of the first and highest duties of all the Courts is to take care that the act of the Court does no injury to any of the suitors." This above lines were quoted by Karnataka High court in KR. Lakshman vs State Of Karnataka And Others (ILR 1995 KAR 1871) and the Honble court further observed that liAs regards the scope of inherent powers of the Court they vested in Civil Court as has been declared under S. 151 of c.P.c., and as regards Revenue Courts, the recognition that has been made and declared under S. 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and same are exercisable to secure the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of the Court." In another case of Karnataka High court R. C.

Puttaiah v. Deputy Commissioner reported in (1989) 2 Kant LJ 9, "I have gone through the decision and I find that in that case the attention of learned single Judge has not been invited to the provisions of Ss. 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Whereunder, it has been provided that nothing in this Act shall be deemed to be limited or otherwise effect the inherent power of the Revenue Court to make such orders as may be necessary in the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the Court."

15. As stated in appeal memo It is not within the knowledge of appellant or his ancestors the illegal entries in RTC records. Recently before filing apppeal when Ahmed Ali Khan and his men tried to enter appellants schedule land, the appellant verified all the revenue records and came to know how the phani entries were illegally made. It is respectfully submitted that "Under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act the limitation has to be computed either from the date of communication of the order passed under Section 129(4) or the date of the knowledge of certification of the entry as provided under Sub-section (6) thereof. The date of knowledge as stated by this appellant is not in dispute and if from such a date of taking certified copy of documents and the appeal is found to be within the period of limitation, the question of condoning the delay cannot arise. Thus, the ground taken by the respondent that appeal is barred by limitation fails. Moreover there is no order under section 129( 4)."

16. To the surprise of this appellant illegal phani entries were made in old records by over-writing and manupulating the official records with an intention to nab the land belonged to the appellants. In a case before Karnataka High court in Bhimappa Channappa Kapali (Deceased) By L.Rs And Ors. vs Bhimappa Satyappa Kamagouda And Ors (ILR 2002 KAR 3055,) it is vehemently held that "Though Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act which deals with presumption regarding entries in the records providing that an entry in the record of rights and a certified entry in the register of mutations or in the patta book shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved or a new entry is lawfully

substituted therefor, before that presumption could be raised it should be shown that such entries are duly certified entries under Section 129 and thereafter such entries are made in the record of rights. Prior to the making of the en tries in the name of the a ppellan t, the entries in the revenue records stood in the name of Gerappa, the husband of Shivawwa. After the death of Gerappa, Shivawwa has executed a registered gift deed in favour of the first respondent. However, first respondent acquired a right in the land in question by virtue of a registered document. The registering authority under Section 128 of the Land Revenue Act is obliged to inform the concerned revenue authorities about the acquisition of right by first respondent in the land in question. Before a change of entry is made, the revenue authorities were under an obligation to notify the owner of the land in question and only after hearing his objections and after enquiry and passing an order in the prescribed manner they shall certify the entry and thereafter make the necessary entry in the register of mutations. If entries are made in this manner after complying with the provisions of Sections 128 and 129, under Section 133 the Court shall presume such entries to be true until the contrary is proved. In the instant case before altering the entries admittedly no notice was given to the first respondent, no enquiry has been held and the proceedings pending between the parties make it clear that the entries made in the revenue records are illegal and these facts and circumstances are sufficient to rebut such presumption."

17. Neither Sabdar Ali Khan or his decendants have any valid title to the suit schedule property and are not in actual possession also are trying to disturb this lawful owner with back door entry in revenue records. The said illegal entry found in the record of rights cannot be accepted for the reason that, mere entry in the record of rights will not entitle the respondent to claim title even though there is a presumption of correctness of entries appearing in the record of rights as per Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The said entry must be made on the basis of the order passed by the competent authority or on the basis of any document, When it is not made in both ways the entry made is illegal.

18. The challenged M.R. 1/86-87, is made against the rules and regulations. The notice is not issued to true legal owner. The alleged OS 68/77 is shown on record there is no final Decree proceedings Number which is essential in civil suits to partition estate by the revenue authorities under the guidance of civil court. It is respectfully submitted that "As per Section 128, 129 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act read with provisions of Rule 65 of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules 1966, on receipt of intimation or information and wherever entries are to be made in mutation registers, notices in duplicate in form 21 is to be served on all the persons required. This provision is mandatory. The serving of notices and other formalities as in normal mutation process are to be therefore followed even in case where an order of civil court is to be implemented by revenue authorities." The Revenue department also expressed same opinion after following decision of High Court reported in Narasegowda vs Assistant Commissioner ILR 1995 KAR 3295 vide Circular number RD 69 MRR 2001 dated 11-06-2002. Which is available in Revenue department website http://www.revdept.kar.nic.in.

19. The revenue authorities has not taken real owner and possessee into record to make the alleged mutation register entry. It is a violation of Principles of Natural Justice. In a case before Supreme Court in STATE OF U.P. v. MOHAMMAD NOOH AIR 1958 SC 86. The material observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court read as under: "On the authorities referred to above it appears to us that there may conceivably be cases - and the instant case is in point - where the error, irregularity or illegality touching jurisdiction or procedure committed by an inferior court or tribunal of first instance is so patent and loudly obstrusive that it leaves on its decision an indelible stamp of infirmity or vice which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal or revision. If an inferior court or tribunal of first instance acts wholly without jurisdiction or patently in excess of jurisdiction or manifestly conducts the proceedings before it in a manner which is contrary to the rules of natural justice and all accepted rules of procedure and which offends the superior Court's sense of fair play the superior Court may, 'we think, quite properly

exercise its power to issue the prerogative writ of certiorari to correct the error of the Court or tribunal of first instance even if an appeal to another inferior Court or tribunal was available and recourse was not had to it or if recourse was had to it, it confirmed what ex facie was a nullity for reasons aforementioned."

20. The persons who may have took partition in OS 68/77 is in no way related to Sarvar Khan and they have colluded together to illegally knock of the property of Sarvar Khan and his decendants without having any valid title deed or possession. It is humbly submitted that "Order XXIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that a compromise decree is not binding on such defendants who are not parties thereto. The court has also a duty to prevent injustice to one of the parties to the litigation. It cannot exercise its jurisdiction to allow the proceedings to be used to work as substantial

injustice A consent decree, as is well-known, is merely an

agreement between the parties with the seal of the court superadded to it. {See Baldevdas Shivlal and Another v. Filmistan Distributors (India) P. Ltd. and Others [(1969) 2 SCC 201], Ifa compromise is to be held to be binding, as is well known, must be signed either by the parties or by their counselor both, failing which Order XXIII, Rule 3 of the code of Civil Procedure would not be applicable. {See Gurpreet Singh v. Chatur Bhuj Goel [(1988) 1 SCC 270]}.

21. In M.R. 22/2002-2003 again the respondents made an effort to change mutation entry without any valid grounds and they are creating innumerable revenue records at the back of this appellant just to knock off the property. The said MR entries and stray entries in 1968-69 are to be quashed since it is made with collusion and corruption of lower revenue officials. Again in MR 22/2002-2003 respondents has shown some panchayathi parikathu of 1994 to get mutation in 2002-03 all these illegal entries are prima facie proof of corrupt practice of lower revenue officials in collusion with respondents violating the law.

22. From 1968-69 to till date Sarvar Khan and his descendants Kareem bhi, Ammanullah Khan names are there in collumn 9 & 12 of RTC but

in 1983 - 84 onwards there is illegal entries of a stranger Shahida Khanum and Abdul Wahid later name of Ahmed Ali Khan. All these later entries and adding of parties to RTC are without the consent of true and lawfull owner in possession of land. In a case before Karnataka High Court in Smt. Ashabi vs Smt. Faziyabi And Ors. (ILR 2004 KAR 3599) "A person who according to Muslim law is an heir of the deceased remains so and gets his legal due. He or she cannot be excluded either by other heirs and survivors of the deceased or even under a specific direction left in that behalf by the deceased himself. One can be excluded from inheritance only under a rule of Muslim law, if applicable in India. It is also well settled that only that relative can be an heir of the deceased who is alive at the moment of the latter's death. A person who died before the deceased cannot be his

heir .It is a well- recognised proposition of law that the

estate of a deceased Mohammedan devolves on his heirs in specific shares at the moment of his death." Hence it can be seen that heirs of Sarvar Khan cannot be excluded by even any act of any parties from succession except through rule of muslim law applicable in India.

23. The Shariat Act was passed by the Central Legislature in 1937. It became for the first time extended to Part "B" States by virtue of the Central Act 48 of 1959 (which came into force on February 1, 1960), called the Miscellaneous Personal Laws (Extension) Act, 1959, which amended its extent clause in such a way as to apply the statute to whole of India except to Jammu and Kashmir. The principal operative section of the said Act is section 2, which reads: "2. Notwithstanding any custom or usage to the contrary, in all question regarding intestate succession, special property of females, including personal property inherited or obtained under contract or gift or any other provision of Personal Law, marriage, dissolution of marriage, including talaq ila, zihar, lian, khula and mubarrat, maintenance, dower, guardianship, gifts, trusts and trust properties and wakfs (other then charities and charitable institutions and charitable and religious endowments) the rule of decision in cases where the parties are Muslims shall be the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat)."

24. Supreme Court in Mohammad Yunus v. Syed Unnissa. AIR 1961 SC 808, Interpreting the force or effect of the words in section 2 of the Shariat Act to the effect that in all matters enumerated therein, the rule of decision in cases where the parties are Muslims shall be the Muslim Personal Law, their Lordships state that the statute would apply not only to suits and proceedings instituted subsequent to the coming into force of the statute but also to suits and proceedings pending on that date whether in original courts or tribunals or in appeal.

25. Inheritance is an integral part of Shariah Law and its application in Islamic society is a mandatory aspect of the divine teaching of Islam.

Muslims inherit from each other as stated in the Qur'an: "J~:A

~~ ~ ~jj wl~ljll 6i:'_)~r.J ~~j ~~ ~ ~jj wl~ljll 6i:'_)~lj ~ Ji ~ ~t ]is. ~ ~.J~" {"4:7 There is a share

for men and a share for women from what is left by parents and those nearest related, whether, the property be small or large - a legal share."} [An-Nisa 4:7] Hence, for Muslims in India there is a legal share for relatives of the deceased in his estate/property. When a person dies there are four rights that need to be performed his property:

1. Pay his/her funeral and burial expenses

2. Pay his/her debts

3. Execute his Will/bequest (max 1/3 of his/her property)

4. Distribute remainder of his/her estate/property according to Shariah Law

26. In relation to inheritance, Mohammad said: Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

"The Prophet said, "Give the Fara'id (the shares of the inheritance that are prescribed in the Qur'an) to those who are entitled to receive it. Then whatever remains, should be given to the closest male relative of the deceased." Thus it can be seen that under Muslim Law no stranger outside the family shall succeed under Shariat Law of Inheritance or Under Quranic Commands. Hence the persons who are not decendants of Mr Sarvar Khan is not entitled to succeed under

Muslim personal law.

27. Regarding respondents objections, they merely denied the appeal averments and they have not disputed appellants relationship with Sarvarkhan, they have not shown how their ancester's name (Sabdar Alikhan's) came on record. The appellants have shown to the court that the land is ancestral property of SarvarKhan. The compromise decree is ineffective If the immoveable property over which a charge was created by a compromise decree was not the subjectmatter of the suit, the decree is not exempt from registration under Section 17 (2){vi), Registration Act. The unregistered decree is ineffective insofar as it creates a charge and cannot take precedence over an attachment of the property. - Bhogilal v Nizam Sugar Factory Ltd., 1968(1) Mys. L.}. 514.

Where fore it is humbly prayed before this Hon'ble court to set aside MR 1/86-87 and MR 22/2002-2003 and order restoration of Ammanullah Khan in the column numbetr 9 and 12 ofRTC rspectively in Survey number 31/1 of Gangonahalli grama, Hebur hobli.Tumkur taluk.

_PLACE: TUMKUR DATE: 28-07-2010

ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANTS

NAME: SRIDHARA BABU N (SBN)

LEGAL DOCUMmATIO~lS

ROLL NO: KAR 2157/2K

Gil BOlO, IB, EITENSION

TUIHUH· 512101

PH: 9880339764

EMAIL: [email protected] http://sridharaba bu. blogspot.com