Dismissed

Raheemunnisa Begum v. M.A. Hafeez

Telangana HC1 Apr 2010CRP/4486/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court dismissed a civil revision petition under Article 227 challenging the trial court's refusal to implead a proposed respondent in a partition suit involving matruka property. The court held that since the petitioners claimed title through the deceased's brother, there was no question of impleading the fifth respondent.

What did the court decide?

No interference with the trial court's order dismissing the impleadment application.

Raheemunnisa Begum Vs M.A. Hafeez — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4486 of 2008

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

1. This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 08.09.2008 in I.A. No.1431 of 2007 in I.A. No.622 of 2005 in O.S. No.262 of 2004 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶5

2. The petition is filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs to implead one G.F.Pasha as respondent no.5 in I.A. No.622 of 2005. The trial Court dismissed the said petition on the ground that the proposed party-G.F.Pasha has no interest and he divested of all the properties long back and so, he need not be impleaded as a party.

¶6

3. The suit is filed by the petitioners herein for partition of matruka property of late M.A. Muqeem. As the respondents/ defendants remained ex parte, a preliminary decree was passed on 8.10.2004. The respondent no.4 herein, after receipt of notice from the Advocate Commissioner on 1.10.2005 for partition of ‘C’ schedule property, filed applications to delete ‘C’ schedule property and to implead him as fourth defendant in the suit. The trial Court dismissed the petition filed to implead him as defendant no.4, but allowed the petition filed to delete the ‘C’ schedule property. As per the order of this Court in C.R.P. No.5041 of 2006, dated 29.12.2006, set aside the order refusing to implead fourth respondent as fourth

¶7

defendant in the suit, and consequently, the fourth respondent was impleaded as defendant no.4 in the suit. Thereafter, the petitioners herein filed the present petition seeking to implead G.F. Pasha-the fifth respondent therein as fifth respondent in I.A. No.622 of 2005. 4. Heard both sides.

¶8

5. The reason for seeking to implead the said G.F. Pasha is that one Mukheem allegedly bequeathed ‘C’ schedule property to the proposed party G.F. Pasha. Whereas it is the case of the petitioners that the said Mukheem died in testate and as per the Muslim Law, his brother Azim got the property, and therefore, the petitioners, who are legal representatives of said Azim are entitled to the share of Mukheem also.

¶9

6. The fourth respondent traced back the title in respect of ‘C’ schedule property to said G.F. Pasha. When the fourth respondent is claiming the title, it is for him to establish that he has got right, title and interest in respect of ‘C’ schedule property. Hence, in view of the fact that it is the specific case of the petitioners that matruka property of Mukheem devolved upon Azim through whom the petitioners are claiming the property, the question of impleading the respondent no.5 at the instance of the petitioners, may not arise. Therefore, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application and the said order needs no interference.

¶10

7. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. However, it is made

¶11

clear that observation, if any, made in this order, is only for the purpose of disposal of this revision petition, and the trial Court shall proceed with the case in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observation in this order.

¶12

--------------------(K.C.Bhanu, J.)

¶13

01.04.2010 DRK

¶14

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶15

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4486 of 2008

¶16

01.04.2010 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶17

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4486 of 2008

¶18

01.04.2010

¶19

Between:

¶20

Raheemunnisa Begum & others …Petitioners And

¶21

M.A. Hafeez & others

¶22

…Respondents

Raheemunnisa Begum v. M.A. Hafeez

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raheemunnisa Begum v. M.A. Hafeez

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

MD Shamsuddin Khan Vs Dildarunnisa Begum and 170 Others

Mohd Muneeruddin Khan Vs Dildarunnisa Begum (Died Per Lrs) and 170 Others

Nelluri Naga Malleswara Rao, Vs Pasupuleti Nagendramma

Rajani Chandra Vs B.Janardhan Reddy

Bidilla Shobha Rani Vs Aleti Saroja

M/s. Abr Carriers (P) Ltd., Vs Sanjay Nene