What were terms and conditions of allotment of site to the SC lady by the govt
2) were there any restrictions on transfer ?
3) kindly clarify
Partition suit
I have bought a BDA allotted site(bought on payment) from SC women in the year 2003. I got the khata transferred in the year 2004, built a house in 2006 after completing all legal formalities . The tax is in my name, electric meter in my name, water is in my name. The women has 3 daughters who are now 42yrs, 38 yrs and 35 years as per documents accessed by me. The youngest daughter has filed a partition suit in court in January 2024. In the plaint the lawyer has made my wife as first defendant, her sisters as 2nd and 3rd defendants and myself as 4th defendant. The age of the sisters are declared as 25 and 27 years. The lawyer has declared in the plaint the building as a SITE. The cause of action is mentioned as "measurement of site by me". WHAT IS MY LEGAL POSITION IN THIS CASE.
Asked 1 year ago in Property Law
Religion: Muslim
11 Answers
1. If the site allotted by BDA to a SC Woman was her self acquired property and if she had absolute rights over the site at the time of selling it to you, then there can't be any problem to you if the sale deed was registered in your name.
2. However if the SC Woman had sold the site to you in the lock-in period itself, then only there would be problem.
3. You can counter the allegation against you based on the documents in your favour.
You need to contest the suit if your wife is a party. Whether maintainability of the suit is applicable needs to be checked and contested by you by filing O7R 11 CPC notice of motion
If the property was bought from the person who had absolute, clear and marketable title to the property, then you don't have to be worried on this
They are approaching the court after two decades of selling the property.
You may challenge the case on the basis of documentary evidences in your support.
Sir, The BDA site was not in lock in period and there was no restriction on transfer of site by BDA. I wonder no one spoke about article 65 applicability. kindly clarify.
Asked 1 year ago
Suit has been filed after 21 years for partition of property sold by mother
2) it is self acquired property of mother
3) claim of daughter is barred by limitation
Purchase of property from a SC person is null and void unless the purchaser is also a SC person.
Wrong declaration of age of a party the suit is not damaging in itself.
The Article 65 does not apply in the instant case as you are not a squatter but an absolute owner of the property having bought it from the BDA allotted person by paying consideration amount and the sale deed is registered in your favour in the jurisdictional Sub Registrar's Office. Also you have constructed a building and possess Khatha Certificate and have been paying taxes and you are in possession of the property since the date of purchase.
- As per Section 42 of the SC, ST Act, there is restrictions on sale, gift and bequest of the interest of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, in the whole or part of their holding.
- Further, a scheduled caste/tribe land holder can only sell his land to schedule caste/tribe person. if anyone buy a land from them by hiding facts, then he can be behind the bar , and further government will return back the land to original land owner at anytime if he approaches authority.
- However, if there was no such restriction , then the said woman was having her right to sell her self property to you and none of her family member having right over the same.
- Hence, her suit of partition is not maintainable on any ground , and article 65 is not applicable in this case because your possession in the property is by transfer of title.
Dear client, if you have bought this land from an SC women with no restriction on it sale with consideration and you have khata certificate in your name which you have obtained legally, then you need not to worry. And other thing is limitation period, as the claim is after more than 20 years, it is barred by limitation and cannot be challenged in court.
You can challenge the ssme
Article - 65 of the limitation act:
The law of Adverse Possession is contained in the Article 65 Sch-I of the Limitation Act, 1963 which prescribes a limitation of 12 years for a suit for possession of an immovable property or any interest therein based on title.
You will not fall in the above category because this property was purchased by a registered document and you were put into possession and enjoyment by the vendor properly.
Therefore there is no necessity to invoke the article 65 unnecessarily into this subject.
If the plaintiff has filed a suit for partition then she should have directly filed against her mother and not against the purchaser.
She can be presumed to be aggrieved only against her mother and not against the purchaser, though she can implead the purchaser as necessary party as defendant third or fourth
Besides the suit is not at all maintainable because it was her mother's self acquired property and not allotted to her mother under any scheme of the government, neither there is any restriction to sell by the authority concerned.
Therefore instead of worrying about it, yo can challenge the case properly in the court of law