Remanded

Mohd. Jahangeer v. Mohd. Sajid Hussain

Telangana HC21 Jun 2013CRP/3805/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Civil Revision Pettition No.3805 of 2012 was decided by the Hon'ble Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar. The Civil Revision Court allowed the revision, set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Court below with a direction to dispose of suit within six months and maintain status quo.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition allowed; impugned order set aside; matter remanded with direction to dispose of suit within six months; status quo maintained.

Mohd. Jahangeer Vs Mohd. Sajid Hussain — Partition | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3805 of 2012

¶2

ORDER:-

¶3

This C.R.P. has been filed challenging the order dated 27.06.2012 passed in C.M.A.No.1 of 2011 by the District Judge, Mahabubnagar.

¶4

The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

¶5

The respondent herein, who is a minor, represented by his mother Smt. Naseemunnisa Begum, filed a suit in O.S.No.121 of 2010 before the Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar, seeking permanent injunction against the defendants. As seen from the facts, it appears that the grand father of the plaintiff – Md. Jaffer and his wife – Fatima Begum were the original owners of the open plots measuring 114 square yards and 100.50 square yards respectively. They executed two registered gift deeds dated 27.12.2004 marked as Exs.R1 and R2, in favour of their son – Mohammed Saber Hussain gifting the properties to him. Subsequently, Mohammed Saber Hussain has sold 79.44 square yards of plot in favour of the first defendant – Mohammed Jahangir and 214.50 square yards in favour of the second defendant and executed registered gift deeds on 14.02.2005. Then, the grandfather and the grandmother of the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.181 of 2006 seeking a declaration that gift deeds dated 27.12.2004 executed in favour of

¶6

Mohammed Saber Hussain are invalid. The said suit was not contested by Saber Hussain and it was, accordingly, decreed. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff, claiming to be in possession of the petition schedule property, filed the suit referred supra along with an application seeking ad-interim injunction. The learned Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar, allowed the said application. Challenging the same, the defendants filed C.M.A.No.1 of 2011 before the District Judge, Mahabubnagar. The learned District, by impugned order dated 27.06.2012, dismissed the C.M.A. upholding the order of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, this C.R.P. has been filed.

¶7

The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants is that Mohammed Saber Hussain, who is the father of the plaintiff, became the absolute owner of the petition schedule lands by virtue of the Gift Deed executed by his parents under Exs.R.1 and R.2 and that subsequently, he executed sale deeds under Exs.R.3 and R.4 on 14.02.2005 selling the petition schedule lands to the defendants. It is further submitted that though the grandparents of the plaintiff filed O.S.No.181 of 2006, in the said suit, there is no challenge to the registered sale deeds dated 14.02.2005 executed by Mohammed Saber Hussain and the defendants herein are not made as parties to the said suit and, therefore, the decree passed by the trial Court is not binding on them and that both the Courts below have not appreciated this fact in right perspective.

¶8

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that Mohammed Saber Hussain was addicted to vices and that he was not in a position to execute the sale deeds under Exs.R3 and R4 on 14.02.2005 in favour of defendants 1 and 2 and that those sale deeds are not valid and that the plaintiff has been in possession of the petition schedule property.

¶9

I have perused the entire record. Whether the sale deeds executed by Mohammed Saber Hussain dated 14.02.2005 in favour of defendants 1 and 2 are valid or not and whether the parents of Mohammed Saber Hussain executed gift deeds under Exs.R.1 and R.2 gifting the petition schedule property in his favour or not are the points that have to be decided after full fledged trial. Since the petition schedule property appears to be open plots, I am inclined to order as follows:-

¶10

The Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order and the matter is remanded back to the Court below with a direction to dispose of the suit as early as possible, preferably, within a period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Till then, both the parties are directed to maintain status quo as on today and they shall not neither create any third party interest nor make any construction over the petition schedule property and shall cooperate with the Court below in disposal of the suit. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶11

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this CRP, shall stand closed.

¶12

_________________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar

¶13

21^st June, 2013 Bvv

Mohd. Jahangeer v. Mohd. Sajid Hussain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Jahangeer v. Mohd. Sajid Hussain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaik Mohammad Sab Vs Bysani Subrahmanhyam

Smt. v.Prameela Rani, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/s Max Pharma Pvt.Ltd., Vs The Government of Andhra Prdesh

P Saroja Devi Vs Acharya N.G. Rangacharya Agriculture University

Abdulla Bin Abdul Raheem, Vs Sayeed Bin Abdur Raheem

Syed Haneef Pasha Vs Smt.Habeeb Bee