Allowed

Mohd.Nazeeruddin v. Khaja Abdul Quadeer

Telangana HC20 Sept 2014CMA/605/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, setting aside the rejection of the appellant's application for temporary injunction. It issued a restraint order preventing the respondents from selling or encumbering the suit land beyond the portions already sold via registered deeds, as they failed to prove the entire property was alienated.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed; the lowerr court's dismissal of the injunction application is revised to restrain the respondents from selling, transferring or encumbering the suit land exc

Mohd.Nazeeruddin Vs Khaja Abdul Quadeer — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

C.M.A.No.605 of 2014

¶3

Date : 20-9-2014

¶4

Between: Mohd. Nazeeruddin .. Appellant And Khaja Abdul Quadeer and another .. Respondents

¶5

Counsel for appellant : Sri M. Pratap Singh Counsel for respondents : Sri M. Rajamalla Reddy

¶6

The Court made the following:

¶7

ORDER:

¶8

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of order dated 21-1-2014 in I.A.No.439 of 2013 in O.S.No.112 of 2013 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet.

¶9

The appellant filed the above mentioned suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of Ac.1-00 out of Ac.2-04 guntas of the suit land in Sy.No.1348 of Siddipet Municipality. He has also filed I.A.No.439 of 2013 for temporary injunction restraining the respondents from alienating or creating third party interest over the suit land. The lower Court has dismissed the said application on the plea of the respondents that they have already sold away the property.

¶10

Sri M. Pratap Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant has seriously disputed the claim of the respondents that they have sold the entire property.

¶11

In paragraph 16 and 17 of the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.1, on behalf of himself and respondent No.2, he has averred as under :

¶12

“I submit that we sold various extents in favour of third parties after earmarking roads, through registered sale deeds. We sold the land in favour of Vemula Sujatha, through registered sale deed and subsequently repurchased the same vide

¶13

Doc.No.427/2004. We constructed a house bearing Door No.19-25/3 comprising two rooms, veranda, cattle shed and big thrashing base.

¶14

I submit that pursuant earlier agreement of sale entered before filing the suit, we executed registered sale deed document No.3311/2013 and 3313/2013 in favour of Bukka Srinivas and Ramya conveying 1210 sq. yards and also registered sale deed document No.3750/2013 conveying 855 square yards in favour of Prasanna Kumari after institution of the suit and inducted them into possession thereof.”

¶15

From the above averments, it appears that out of the extent of Ac.2-04 guntas, the respondents have sold only 2065 sq. yards, which constitutes less than half an acre. In the absence of documentary evidence that the respondents have sold the entire suit land, the lower Court erroneously rejected the application for injunction. If the respondents sell the property pending the suit, third party interests will come in leading to avoidable complications. In view of the same, the respondents are restrained by way of injunction from selling, transferring or encumbering in any manner the suit schedule property except to the extent of the properties already sold by them through registered sale deeds.

¶16

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed.

¶17

As a sequel to the disposal of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, CMAMP No.901 of 2014 is disposed of as infructuous.

¶18

________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy

¶19

Date : 20-9-2014

¶20

Mohd.Nazeeruddin v. Khaja Abdul Quadeer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd.Nazeeruddin v. Khaja Abdul Quadeer

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

S.R.K.K.R.S.B. Raj Bahadur Vs Chintala Venkat Ram Reddy

Sk. Fathima Bee Vs The General Manager

G.Shareefunnisa Begum Vs The Kurnool Municipal Corporation

Bandaru Narsing Rao, Vs Sri Bandaru RamChander

K.Rukma Reddy, Vs The Assistant Commissioner Endowments Department.

Basanth Patel, Vs Smt. Kamala Bai