Supreme Court of India

SEWA RAM AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: 1997 INSC 346
Decided: 1 April 1997
Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: K RAMASWAMYD P WADHWA

Holding

A purchaser cannot acquire a better title than the seller; since the seller, an enemy citizen, had no title, the appellants obtained no valid title to the property.

Summary

Mohd. Marghoob Siddiqui, who had migrated to Pakistan before 1947 and became a Pakistani citizen, claimed Bhumidari rights of his mother Kabool Fatima after her death in 1965 and sold the land to the appellants. The Union of India and others initiated proceedings under the Enemy Property Act, 1968, asserting that Siddiqui, as an enemy, had no legal right to the property. The appellants filed an injunction suit to prevent the respondents from taking possession, but the High Court dismissed their revision. The Supreme Court examined whether the appellants could acquire a valid title from Siddiqui, who, having ceased to be an Indian citizen, possessed no title, right, or interest in the land. The Court held that a purchaser cannot obtain a better title than the seller, and therefore the appellants acquired no title. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether a person who became a citizen of Pakistan and is deemed an enemy under the Enemy Property Act, 1968, can acquire Bhumidari rights and transfer valid title to another party.

Legislation cited

Enemy Property Act, 1968

Subjects

Enemy propertyBhumidari rightsTitle transferCitizenshipPakistanInjunctionSpecial leaveProperty law

Judgment

A                            SEWA RAM AND ORS.
                                          v.
                          UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

                                   APRIL 1, 1997

B                [K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.]

           Enemy Property Act, 1968:

         M migrated to Pakistan before 1947 and became citizen of Pakis-
C tan-His mother remained in India-After death of his mother he came to
  India a11d obtai11ed Bhumidari rights-La11d sold to appellants--Respo11dents
  initiated proceedi11gs i11 respect of property-Appella11ts unsuccessfully filed a
  suit for inju11ctio11 to restrain the respo11dents from taking possessio11 of the
  praperty-Revision dismissed by High Court-AppeaHfeld in the cir-
  cumstance M had no right title or i11terest in property-Accordingly appellant
D could not acquire a11y title from M.
           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2746 of
    1980

         From the Judgment and Order dated 31.7.79 of the Allahabad High
E   Court in C.R. No. 84 of 1978.

           AB. Rohtagi and Ambrish Kumar for the Appellants.

           AK. Srivastava (NP) for the Respondent

F          The following Order of the Court was delivered :

         This appeal by special leave arises from the order dated 31.7.1979 of
    the High Court of Allahabad made in Civil Revision No. 84 of 1978.

           The admitted position is that one Mohd. Marghoob Siddiqui had
G migrated to Pakistan prior to August 14, 1947 and became a citizen of
  Pakistan. His mother Kabool Fatima who remained in India died on
  August 7, 1965. Subsequently, he came to India and appears to have
  obtained the Bhumidari rights of his mother and sold the property to the
  appellants. The respondents had initiated proceedings against the property
H on the ground that Mohd. Marghoob Siddiqui was an enemy and therefore,
                                     490
                           SEWARAMv. U.O.I.                               491

the Enemy Property Act, 1968 (Act No. 34 of 1968) was applicable. The A
appellants claimed title to the property. Subsequent thereto, the appellants
filed a suit for injunction to restrain the respondents from taking possession
of the property. Ultimately they came to be unsuccessful in the revision
before the High Court. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

        The only question is whether the appellants have acquired any valid      B
title to the property from Mohd. Marghoob Siddiqui, a citizen of Pakistan?
On his acquiring citizenship of Pakistan, M.M. Siddiqui ceased to be a
citizen of India and thereby after the demise of his mother, he had no right,
title or interest in the land to obtain bhumidari right. The proceedings and
~~~-                                                                             c
        Under these circumstances, since the purchaser cannot have a better
title than the seller himself had,. the appellants could not acquire any title
by virtue of sale effected by Mohd. Marghoob Siddiqui.

      The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.                             D
T.N.A.                                                    Appeal dismissed.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "Enemy property"Sign in to search