MUSLIMVEETIL CHALAKKAL AHAMMED HAJI versus SAKEENA BEEVI

MUSLIMVEETIL CHALAKKAL AHAMMED HAJI versus SAKEENA BEEVI

The affidavit dated 30.04.2013 executed by the defendant ratified the acts of the unregistered power of attorney holder and expressed no-objection to transfer; limitation therefore commenced from that date and the suit filed in 2013 was within the prescribed period; the appellant proved readiness and willingness; the High Court erred in dismissing the appeal; appellant entitled to conveyance of the defendant's 1/11th share, subject to payment of the balance consideration to be determined by the trial Court with 9% simple interest.

Parties
Plaintiff Appellant: Muslimveetil Chalakkal Ahammed Haji; Defendant Respondent: Sakeena Beevi
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
07 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Judgment of the High Court; Final Disposal by Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeals allowed; impugned judgments set aside; decree for specific performance granted to extent of defendant's 1/11th share
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Readiness and Willingness, Limitation, Power of Attorney, Ratification, Revocation
Specific Relief Act, 1963 Limitation Act, 1963 Education Law (kerala Education Rules) Specific Performance Readiness and Willingness Limitation Power of Attorney Ratification +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Muslimveetil Chalakkal Ahammed Haji

Plaintiff Appellant

Sakeena Beevi

Defendant Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Judgment of the High Court; Final Disposal by Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the suit for specific performance was barred by limitation
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff-appellant was ready and willing to perform
  3. 3 Whether the unregistered power of attorney (Exh. A4) was revoked and whether acts under it were ratified by the defendant-respondent

Ratio Decidendi

The affidavit dated 30.04.2013 executed by the defendant ratified the acts of the unregistered power of attorney holder and expressed no-objection to transfer; limitation therefore commenced from that date and the suit filed in 2013 was within the prescribed period; the appellant proved readiness and willingness; the High Court erred in dismissing the appeal; appellant entitled to conveyance of the defendant's 1/11th share, subject to payment of the balance consideration to be determined by the trial Court with 9% simple interest.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; impugned judgments set aside; decree for specific performance granted to extent of defendant's 1/11th share

Orders

  • Impugned judgments of the High Court and trial Court set aside
  • Plaintiff-appellant entitled to conveyance of the defendant-respondent's 1/11th share in the plaint schedule property