S.M.KARIM versus MST. BIBI SAKINA

S.M.KARIM versus MST. BIBI SAKINA

Section 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure bars suits based on benami transactions against certified purchasers and anyone claiming through them. Long possession is not necessarily adverse possession and without a proper plea, alternative relief cannot be claimed. The plaint did not contain sufficient allegations to constitute a plea of adverse possession.

Parties
Appellant: S. M. Karim; Respondent: Mst. Bibi Sakina
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
14 February 1964
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave Against Judgment and Decree of Patna High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Benami Transaction, Adverse Possession, Code of Civil Procedure Section 66
Civil Procedure Property Law Benami Transaction Adverse Possession Code of Civil Procedure Section 66

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S. M. Karim

Appellant

Mst. Bibi Sakina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave Against Judgment and Decree of Patna High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's claim based on the benami nature of the 1914 transaction can be maintained
  2. 2 Whether the title was extinguished by adverse possession and if a proper plea of adverse possession was raised

Ratio Decidendi

Section 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure bars suits based on benami transactions against certified purchasers and anyone claiming through them. Long possession is not necessarily adverse possession and without a proper plea, alternative relief cannot be claimed. The plaint did not contain sufficient allegations to constitute a plea of adverse possession.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Appellant to bear costs