Dismissed

Sri M.a.Moiz Abbasi v. Mrs.Shaik Naseem Banu

Telangana HC3 Jul 2014CMA/592/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil miscellaneous appeal, the Single Judge dismissed an appeal challenging the rejection of an application for temporary injunction. The court held that interference is unwarranted because any alienation during suit pendency would be void ab initio under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed. A consequential application was dismissed as infructuous.

Sri M.a.Moiz Abbasi Vs Mrs.Shaik Naseem… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CMA.No.592 of 2014

¶2

Date:03.07.2014

¶3

Between: M.A.Moiz Abbasi, S/o Late Abdul Hai Abbasi

¶4

……Appellant

¶5

And:

¶6

Shaik Naseem Banu, W/o Late Usman

¶7

..…Respondent

¶8

Counsel for the appellant: Sri Nazir Ahmed Khan

¶9

Counsel for the respondent: ---

¶10

The Court made the following:

¶11

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CMA.No.592 of 2014

¶12

JUDGMENT:

¶13

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of order, dated 18.11.2013, in I.A.No.875 of 2013 in O.S.No.524 of 2013 on the file of the learned Special Sessions Judge for SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989-cumAdditional District and Sessions Judge at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶14

I have heard Sri Nazir Ahmed Khan, the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

¶15

The appellant pleaded that the suit schedule plot originally belonged to the Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District; that the said plot was allotted to one Syed

¶16

Mubasheeruddin Ahmed in the year 1982-83 under physically handicapped quota; that the said allottee, who was a polio patient and was in need of money, sold the said plot to the appellant under registered sale deed, dated 24.07.2012; that as the respondent was in physical possession of the vacant property, the appellant demanded her to vacate the same; and that as, the respondent along with her husband threatened the appellant of causing physical harm, he has filed O.S.No.524 of 2013 for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. The appellant also filed I.A.No.875 of 2013 in the said suit for temporary injunction restraining the respondent from alienating the suit schedule property to third parties till the disposal of the suit. The lower Court by the order under appeal has dismissed the said application.

¶17

After hearing Sri Nazir Ahmed, Khan, the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the lower Court does not warrant interference by this Court for the reason that in the event of the appellant succeeding in the suit, the alienations, if any, made during the pendency of the suit will be hit by the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the same will be void ab initio.

¶18

In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶19

As a sequel to dismissal of the appeal, CMAMP.No.867 of 2014 is dismissed as infructuous.

¶20

____________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶21

03^rd July, 2014 DR

Sri M.a.Moiz Abbasi v. Mrs.Shaik Naseem Banu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M.a.Moiz Abbasi v. Mrs.Shaik Naseem Banu

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

M/S Sunku Auto Ltd. (in Liqn) Vs Sri Syam Karthik Upadhyay and 2 Others

Thomas Joseph, Vs the Official Liquidator

Thathuru Venkateswarlu Vs Edhala Balakrishnama Naidu

Gonda Hari Prasad Vs Naroju Virender

Friends Coop Housing Society Ltd., Vs Smt. Singireddy Narsamma

B. Venkateswarlu Vs K. Veeramma