Before

HON’BLE DISTRICT COURT OF JAIPUR

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

ALI MOHAMMAD NAJAR Appellant

VS

MST. SAJA Respondent

UNDER SECTION 9 and 16 OF

THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

Submitted by – TEJ PRAKASH

BA. LL.B
Vth Semester , IIIrd Year
Submitted to - Sheikh Inam Ul Mansoor , Assistant Professor of Law
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2

INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4

STATEMENT OF FACTS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5

STATEMENTS OF ISSUES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 6

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8

PRAYER ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12

Plaint………………………………………………………………………………13

1
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Statutes Referred

1. The Code of Civil Procedure

Books refered
1. Code of civil procedure by C.K Takwani
2. Muslim law by S.R Myneni’s
Precedents Cited
1. Ananti v. Chhannu , AIR 1930 ALL 193
2. Sawarni (Smt.) Vs. Inder Kaur, (1996) 6 SCC 223
3. Mahipal Singh And Ors. vs Board Of Revenue And Ors , 1 (1989) WLN Rev 32

2
 INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS

Serial No. Abbreviation Words

1. AIR All India Report

2. Anr. Another

3. HC High Court

4. SC Supreme Court

5. SCC Supreme Court Cases

6. Sec Section

8. Ors. Others

9. No. Number

11. Hon’ble Honourable

13. P Party

15. i.e., In essence

16. U/ Under

3
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE HON’BLE DISTRICT COURT OF JAIPUR EXERCISES JURISDICTION TO HEAR

AND ADJUDICATE THE MATTER UNDER SECTION 9 AND SECTION 16 OF THE CODE
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.

4
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

PARTIES
S. No. Name of Party Relation
1 Sultan Najar(p1) Owner of property
2 Ali Mohammad Najar(p2) Adopted son of P1
3 Mst. Saja(p3) Daughter of P4
4 Gh Rasool Najar(p4) Nephew of P1 , Brother of P2
5 Ghulam Mohammad Najar (p5) Son of P4 , Brother of P3
6 Fayaz Ahmad Najar(p6) Son of P4 , Brother of P3

1. Sultan Najar further called (P1) entitle holder of property measuring 17 BIGHA falling
under survey no’s 110 (1 BIGHA) 114(5 BIGHA) 286(4 BIGHA) 284(1 BIGHA) 180(2
BIGHA) 223-( 1 BIGHA) 557/199 (3 BIGHA) at KHONAGORIAN District JAIPUR has
died issueless. He adopted Ali Mohammad Najar further called (P2) who is the permanent
resident of KHONAGORIAN District JAIPUR as his adopted son and had executed general
power of attorney in his favour
2. Mst. Saja further called (P3) without any right/ interest got an event recorded in revenue
record on alleged adoption and the mutation thus was attested at P2’s back with the
connivance of revenue officials vide mutation no. 569 of estate KHONAGORIAN District
JAIPUR attested on 7.8.1980 which was challenged before the collector Jaipur.
3. The Collector jaipur accepting the same, set-aside the mutation vide his order dated
18.3.1982. That P3 is alleging that the P1 had executed a will deed on 2.5.1974 registered
on 7th of May 1974 by Sub-registrar jaipur in their favour and by virtue of alleged will deed
the P3 claim to be the adopted daughter and son of the deceased P1.
4. P2 is nephew of deceased P1 whereas P3 is the daughter of the Gh Rasool Najar further
called (P4) brother of P2 and so was also the nephew of said P1.
5. P3 has two brothers viz Ghulam Mohammad Najar further called (P5) and Fayaz Ahmad
Najar further called (P6), The property as per personal law has to be devolved upon P2 and
P3 in equal preposition and thereafter died in the year 2000 was survived by P3 and said two
sons.

5
 ISSUES

I. Whether the present suit is maintainable before the court or not?

II. How much share in property is entitled to Mst. Saja?
III. Whether the mutation of Mst Saja valid?

6
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. Whether the present suit is maintainable before the court or not?

It is humbly submitted to the District Court of Jaipur that they have the jurisdiction to hear and
adjudicate over the matters under Section9 and section 16 of The Code of Civil Procedure.
Section 16 empowers to institute suits where the subject matter is situated. In the present case,
the suit has been filed for determination of rights and interest over immoveable property. Thus,
this suit is maintainable before the Court of Jaipur.

II. How much share in property is entitled to Mst. Saja?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that as per personal law has to be devolved
upon Ali Mohammad Najar and father of Mst. Saja in equal preposition and thereafter Rasool
who died in the year 2000 was survived by Mst. Saja and said two sons meaning thereby that on
one half of the share of estate left by said Sultan Najar, it is not Mst. Saja alone who has a right
but there are her two brothers who will get four shares out of it and the defendant No.1 is entitled
to 1/5th only. Regarding the rest half share of the state left behind by Sultan Najar, Ali
Mohammad Najar has the entitlement grounds.

III. Whether the mutation of Mst Saja valid?

Mutation made by mst saja right/ interest got an event recorded in revenue record on

alleged adoption and the mutation thus was attested at Ali Mohammad Najar’s back with the

connivance of revenue officials vide mutation no. 569 of estate KHONAGORIAN District

JAIPUR attested on 7.8.1980 which was challenged by the Ali Mohammad Najar before the

collector Jaipur which was set-aside vide his order dated 18.3.1982.

7
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE I. WHETHER THE PRESENT SUIT IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE

THE COURT OR NOT?

1. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that they have the jurisdiction to hear
and adjudicate over the matters under Section 16 of The Code of Civil Procedure.
Section 16 empowers to institute suits where the subject matter is situated. In the
present case, the suit has been filed for determination of rights and interest over
immoveable property. Thus, this suit is maintainable before the Court of Jaipur.

2. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that in the present case where the
suit has been instituted for determination of the rights of the 17 bigha property of
Sultan Najar between Ali Mohammad Najar and daughter of Rasool Najar i.e., Mst.
Saja Najar, which in turn falls under the ingredients of sec 16.

3. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that Rasool who died in the year
2000 was survived by Mst. Saja and said two sons meaning thereby that on one half
of the share of estate left by said Sultan Najar, it is not Mst. Saja alone who has a
right but there are her two brothers who will get four shares out of it and the
defendant No.1 is entitled to 1/5th only. Regarding the rest half share of the state left
behind by Sultan Najar, Ali Mohammad Najar has the entitlement grounds.

4. In Ananti v. Chhannu1, the Court has laid down the correct law on this point, “The
Plaintiff chooses his forum and files his suit. If he establishes the correctness of his
facts he will get his relief from the forum chosen.”

1
Ananti v. Chhannu , AIR 1930 ALL 193

8
 ISSUE II: HOW MUCH SHARE IN PROPERTY IS ENTITLED TO SAJA?

5. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that as per personal law has to be
devolved upon Ali Mohammad Najar and father of Mst. Saja in equal preposition and
thereafter Rasool who died in the year 2000 was survived by Mst. Saja and said two
sons meaning thereby that on one half of the share of estate left by said Sultan Najar,
it is not Mst. Saja alone who has a right but there are her two brothers who will get
four shares out of it and the defendant No.1 is entitled to 1/5th only. Regarding the
rest half share of the state left behind by Sultan Najar, Ali Mohammad Najar has the
entitlement grounds.

6. Under Muslim law, the rules of inheritance are rather strict. A son takes double the
share of a daughter, on the other hand, the daughter is the absolute owner of whatever
property she inherits. The Surah IV2 of the Quran states that “From what is left by
parents and those nearest related, there is a share for men and a share for women,
whether the property is small or large- a determinate share.”

7. In the present case , where the property should have been divided in between Ali and
Rasool , and upon death of Rasool in 2000 the further division of property in his three
children. Therefore, Saja is entitled to only 1/5th share in the property , the rest of
which is to distributed among her brothers.

8. Muslim law recognizes two types of heirs, Sharers and Residuaries. Sharers are the
ones who are entitled to a certain share in the deceased’s property and Residuaries
would take up the share in the property that is left over after the sharers have taken

2
They ask you ˹for a ruling, O Prophet˺. Say, “Allah gives you a ruling regarding those who die without children or
parents.” If a man dies childless and leaves behind a sister, she will inherit one-half of his estate, whereas her brother
will inherit all of her estate if she dies childless. If this person leaves behind two sisters, they together will inherit
two-thirds of the estate. But if the deceased leaves male and female siblings, a male’s share will be equal to that of
two females. Allah makes ˹this˺ clear to you so you do not go astray. And Allah has ˹perfect˺ knowledge of all
things.

9
 their part. If the deceased had left behind son(s) and daughter(s), then, the daughters
cease to be sharers and become residuaries instead, with the residue being so
distributed as to ensure that each son gets double of what each daughter gets.

9. In Abdul Raheem vs. Land Acquisition Officer3, it was held that the joint system
family or joint property is unknown to Muslim law and therefore the right, title and
interest in the land held by the person stands extinguished and stands vested in other
persons.

3
Abdul Raheem vs. Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1989 AP 318

10
 ISSUE III: WHETHER THE MUTATION OF MST SAJA VALID?

10. It is humbly submitted before the court that the defendants (Mst. Saja) without any
right/ interest got an event recorded in revenue record on alleged adoption and the
mutation thus was attested at Ali Mohammad Najar’s back with the connivance of
revenue officials vide mutation no. 569 of estate KHONAGORIAN District JAIPUR
attested on 7.8.1980 which was challenged by the Ali Mohammad Najar before the
collector Jaipur which was set-aside vide his order dated 18.3.1982.
11. For the process of mutation, certain documents are mandatorily needed to be
submitted-Certificate of succession
Certificate of death
Certificate of legal heir ;
And an applicant should pay Rs 30 for mutating land in Rajasthan.

12. It is humbly submitted that the mutation, also termed as ‘Dakhil Kharij’, is the process
of recording the change/transfer in the title of ownership after the property has been
transferred or sold. Once mutation is done, the same is recorded in the land revenue
department, which eventually helps the authorities to fixate upon the tax liability.

13. The Supreme Court in the case of Sawarni (Smt.) Vs. Inder Kaur 4, held that the
mutation of a property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title, nor
does it have any presumptive value on the title. It only enables the person in whose
favor mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question

14. The Hon’ble high court of Rajasthan in the case of Mahipal Singh And Ors. vs Board
Of Revenue And Ors5 made observation that there can be no interference by the court
there is no failure on the part of the Board of Revenue to exercise its jurisdiction
nor did it act in disregard of principles of, natural justice nor was the procedure
adopted by it not in consonance with the procedure established by law of
resumption of Jagir.
4
Sawarni (Smt.) Vs. Inder Kaur, (1996) 6 SCC 223
5
Mahipal Singh And Ors. vs Board Of Revenue And Ors , 1 (1989) WLN Rev 32

11
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of facts of the case, issues raised, submissions advanced and authorities
cited it is humbly pleaded that this Honourable Court of Sapota may be pleased to order:

1. That the present suit is maintainable before the court.

2. That the defendant is entitled to only 1/5th share in the property.

3. That the will by defendant is illegitimate.

And pass any other order in favour of the Plaintiff that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the
ends of justice, equity, and good conscience.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

Date: --/--/2022 Sd/-

-On behalf of
-Counsel for the Plaintiff

12
 IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE , AT JAIPUR
Suit No. ……/2005

Ali mohammad nazar S/o Ali ilas nazar , aged about 45 years, Occupation:
Grocery shop,R/O, A5, Sky high Residency, khonagorian, jaipur
. .............Plaintiff

Versus
Mst. saja, d/o Gh Rasool , aged about 40, occupation:home maker, R/o
Khonagorian , jaipur
. ...........Defendant

Suit for the entitlement of Plaintiff’s property

13
The above mentioned Plaintiff humbly submits as under:

1. Sultan Najar further called (P1) estate holder of property measuring 17 BIGHA falling
under survey no’s 110 (1 BIGHA) 114(5 BIGHA) 286(4 BIGHA) 284(1 BIGHA)
180(2 BIGHA) 223-( 1 BIGHA) 557/199 (3 BIGHA) at KHONAGORIAN District
JAIPUR has died issueless. He adopted Ali Mohammad Najar further called (P2) who
is the permanent resident of KHONAGORIAN District JAIPUR as his adopted son and
had executed general power of attorney in his favour
2. Mst. Saja further called (P3) without any right/ interest got an event recorded in revenue
record on alleged adoption and the mutation thus was attested at P2’s back with the
connivance of revenue officials vide mutation no. 569 of estate KHONAGORIAN District
JAIPUR attested on 7.8.1980 which was challenged before the collector Jaipur.
3. The Collector jaipur accepting the same, set-aside the mutation vide his order dated
18.3.1982. That P3 is alleging that the P1 had executed a will deed on 2.5.1974 registered
on 7th of May 1974 by Sub-registrar jaipur in their favour and by virtue of alleged will
deed the P3 claim to be the adopted daughter and son of the deceased P1.
4. P2 is nephew of deceased P1 whereas P3 is the daughter of the Gh Rasool Najar further
called (P4) brother of P2 and so was also the nephew of said P1.
5. P3 has two brothers viz Ghulam Mohammad Najar further called (P5) and Fayaz
Ahmad Najar further called (P6), The property as per personal law has to be devolved
upon P2 and P3 in equal preposition and thereafter died in the year 2000 was survived by
P3 and said two sons.

14
 Plaintiff prays for the following reliefs:

1. That the present suit is maintainable before the court.

2. That the defendant is entitled to only 1/5th share in the property.

3. That the will by defendant is illegitimate.

Place_________ Sd- Sd-

Date_________ Counsel Plaintiff

15
 Verification

I Mr Ali mohammad nazar ,S/oMr. Ali ilas nazar ,the above mentioned
plaintiff , do here by verify that the contents of Para1to5 are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and the contents of the
remaining paras are on the basis of information and legal advice from
my counsel which I believe to be true,and verify on this the Fifth day of
November,2005 at jaipur.

PLAINTIFF

16