Dismissed

Mr.Yousuf Begum v. Mrs.Jameela Fatima and 12 Others

Telangana HC12 Sept 2022CMA/145/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking interim injunction to restrain alienation of scheduled properties. The Court held the appellant failed to establish prima facie case and balance of convenience, as the nature of properties remains disputed pending trial.

What did the court decide?

Appellant directed to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months

Mr.Yousuf Begum Vs Mrs.Jameela Fatima and 12 Others — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI AND THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G,PRIYADARSINI

¶5

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 145 0F 2019

¶6

Appeal Under order 43 Rure 1 of cpc against the JudgmenvDecree in |.A.No.1205 ol 2017 ino.s.No.707 ot2017 dated22.01 .2olgonthefileof thecourt of the lll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mrs. Yousuf Beoum. Wo ^lg!9. Mohammed Anwar, Aged about 70 years, occ- Housewife ,-Ah. a-z-loefilt, knala Nagai^'Fii.t* Lrn"".r, Hyoirauarj.--^-'

¶9

...APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF

¶10

AND

¶11

'1. Mrs.Jameela. Fatima, Wo. Late Mohammed Siraj Anwar, Aged abou! 52 Years, Occ- Househotd,H. No. B-T-7OB7 n, Knali ruagar, firit f_incEr,^-- Hyderabad - 28.

¶12

Mr. Mohammed Anwar llyas, S/o. Late Mohammed Siraj Anwar, Aged abou! 32 Years, Occ- Business,

¶13

Mr. Mohammed lmtivaz Anwar, S/o. Late Mohammed Siraj Anwar, Aged about- 31 Years, OcL Business,

¶14

Ms. Asra Fatima, D/o. Late Mohammed Siraj Anwar, Aged abou! 32 years, Occ- Household,

¶15

Mr. Mohammed lmran Anwar, S/o. Late Mohammed Siraj Anwar, Aged abou! 25 Years, Occ- Business,

¶16

Ms. Arshiya Fatima, D/o. Late Mohammed Siraj Anwar, Aged about- 25 Years, Occ- Household,

¶17

Ms. Jumair Fatima, D/o. Late Mohammed Siraj Anwar, Aged about- 24 years, Occ- Household,

¶18

Ms. Asma Fatima, D/o. Late Mohammed Siraj Anwar, Aged about- 24 years, Occ- Household,

¶19

Ms. Humera Fatima, D/o. Late Mohammed Siraj Anwar, Aged aboul 21 Years, Occ- Household,

¶20

Ms. Nisha Fatima, D/o. Late Mohammed Siraj Anwar, Aged about- 20 years, Occ- Household,

¶21

Defendants 1 to 10 above are residents of H. No. g_2-7\Bll t1, Khaja Nagar, First Lancer, Hy, lerabad - 28.

¶22

11.Mrs. N{;eemAr war, W/o. Late Mohammed Siraj Anwar, Aged abou! 46 Years, Ocr;- Hor sehold,

¶23

'l2.Ms. Simre,-.nAn var, D/o. Late Mohammed Siraj Anwar, Aged about- 20 Years, Ocr;- Stu tent,

¶24

Ms Sgna.,Anwa , D/o. Late Mohammed Siraj Anwar. Aged about _ 1g years, Occ- Studt-'nt,

¶25

Defendanl^{'1 'l} to 13 are the residents of H.No. 12-2-Tgota1zei, Dirshad Nagar Colony, M,-"hdip; rtnam, Hyderabad.

¶26

.,.RE:SPONDENTS

¶27

IA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶28

Petition urder ')rder 39 Rures 1 and 2 praying that in the circumstances stated in the aflidavit fired herein, the High court may be preased to pass the orders of ad-interim in unction against the Respondents herein, restraining them or 1ny^{other personcra ming} under or through them from arie,nating the petition schedule Properties tr, any other Third party or creating any Third party interest in the Petition Scherdulec properties,

¶29

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY "A''

¶30

All that the pro rerty i.e., property bearing Municipal Nc,. 12_2-7gOtN26 on Plot No. 26, in sy. No 292t3r1, admeasuring 175.0 sq. yds., and situated at Rethi Bowli, Gudimalkapur, lyderabad and bounded as follows:

¶31

NOI]TH Neighbours House No. 12-2-7golN2l SOUTH Neighbours House No. 12-2-7gOlN2S EAST Neighbors House WEST 20'Wide Road

¶32

S(:HEDULE OF PROPERTY ''8"

¶33

All that the Portion of House bearing Municipal No. B-2-71116, admeasuring and comprising on an area of 100.00 square^yards or equivalent to g3.61 square Meters (out of 205.00 square Yards), situated at Khaja Nagar, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, A.P., and bounded by:

¶34

NORTH	House of MohammedRaoof
SOUTH	PortionofHouseofDonor
EAST	Road20'Feet Wide
WEST	Lane 06' Feet wide
	SCHEDULEOF PROPERTY"C"

¶35

All that the Plot Nos. 5, 9, 23tA,48,49, 60, 61 total admeasuring 3312 Sq. Yhrds in sy. No. 30 part, situated at Bandraguda Jagir vilrage, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and bounded by:

¶36

NORTH Agri. Land in part of Survey No. 30 SOUTH : Part of Sy. No. 30 belongs to Siraj Anwar EAST Part of Sy. No. 30 belongs to Siraj Anwar Existing 40'Wide Road, WEST : Agri. Land in Sy. No. 38 & Neighbours Land.

¶37

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL

¶38

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.l to 10: SRI S. M. RAFEE

¶39

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 I to 13: SRI V. RAJASEKHAR REDDY The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶40

¶41

¶42

TH T HON,BLE IUSTICE G.SRI DEVI AND

¶43

TH E rroN' B LE SMT IUSTICE M.G.PRIYADI.Ii.SINI

¶44

C.M.A.No.145 of 2O19

¶45

JDGMENT: (Per H )n'bte Justice G.sri Devi)

¶46

This Civj t Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Order 43 Rule (1) of C.P. 1., against the order, dated 22.01..2019,. passed by the tll-Additior al Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in I.A.No..l2tt5 of^'.'077 in O.S.No.707 ot2017 dismissing the petition filed by tlre appellant / petitioner / plaintiff for grant oI ad-interim injunction rer training the respondents/ defendan ts from alienating the petition scheduled property in favour of third parties.

¶47

Brief fact; for disposal of this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal are as follows:

¶48

l hc ap rellan t/ plaintiff filcd a suit al5ainst the responrler ts/ 11, tentlants for partition and separate possession of thc. suit scheclu crl properties as per Shariat [aw. AIong with the suit. the rrlain ifi also filecl LA.No.1205 of 2017 urrcler Order XXXIX ItL lt-s I .rr-rt1 2 of C.I'].C., seeking ad-interiru irrjrrnction in

/ I

f"l

her favour, restraining the respondents/defendants from alienating the petition scheduled properties in favour of third parties pending disposal of the main suit. It is stated in the affidavir filed in support of the perition rhat the plainriff is the wife of late Mohammed Anwar and they were blessed with four sons and three daughters and that her husband died on 77.06.7997; that during the lifetime of her husband, her elder son by name Siraj Anwar had purchased several movable and immovable properties and invested in the business and thereafter he expired on 09.09.2016 at Hyderabad due to cardiac arresf that the 1st respondent is the wife of late Siraj Anwar and respondents 2 to 10 are the children of the 1st respondenf that the 1$ respondent is the 2nd wife of rate siraj Anwar, who bressed with two daughters i.e., respondents 12 and 13; that after the death of the elder son of the appellant/plaintift the respondents started misbehaving with the plaintiff; that as per Shariat Law, the ProPerty^and estate Ieft over by her elder son Mohammed Siraj Anwar shall be divided into 336 shares and partitionecl among his legal heirs and she was entitled to 56 shares in the suit

¶53

¶54

¶55

property and^'Fatwa' was also issued to that effect by Jamia Nizamia; that rs there was no safety to the plainhff at the hands of the responi ents, she demanded the responclents fc r partition and that the r rspondents bluntly refused for the sa nre and tl-re responderts n,:gotiating with the third parties for alie'nating the schedulerl pro rerties; that there is prima facie case ancl balance of convenience ir favour of the appellant/ plaintif f anci if injunction is not granted, she will be put to great hardship ancl .rrcoarable loss, whi:h ca mot be compensated by any means a;rd hence pra'y ed to gran : temporary injunction.

¶56

Re:.ponc ents/ defendants 1 to 10 filed counte r denying averments ma le in the affidavit, inter alia, contend'r'rg that late Mohamrred S iraj Anwar earned various propertrei and the business estalrlishments run by him are his s;elf-acquired propertie;; tha. late Mohammed Sira.j Ann,ar h.rci also Pur.chased a Commr:rcial Mulgi and transferred the sam<: in far,our of the plaintiff ,rnd that the plaintiff is getting rents Rs.liC.000/- per morrth a rcl tl rat the said Mohammecl Siraj Anw a r d it:cl on 09,09.201tr; tha t the petition 'A' schedule properfl/ was alreatl1,

gifted to respondent No.11 by late Mohammed Siraj Anwar during his life time; 'B' schedule property was orally gifted on -17.04.201,4 to the 1st respondent by the said Siraj Anwar and respondents 2 to 10 are residing in the said house; that 'C' schedule property plots were also gifted to respondents 2 and 3 by way of oral gift by late Mohammed Siraj Anwar on17.04.2074 and the same was acknowledged by way of Memorar-rdum of Gift on 12.05.2014 and as such none of thc properties w,ere available for partition; that there is no prima facie case made out in favour of the plaintiff and as such the plaintlff is not cntitled for any share since the respondents are the owners of the property and no injunction can be granted against them; that the said Siraj Anwar provided huge funds for the purpose of business, education of his brothers; that the brotl-rer of late Mohammed Siraj Anwar, who is the brother-in-law of the 1.t respondent and paternal uncles of respondents 2 to 10 filed a false suit being O.S.No.2194 of 2077 on the file of the XXll^junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, by fabricating and forging the signatures and, therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition

During e rquiry, no oral or documentary evidr--nce was adduced by botl L parties

¶65

Afte r con ;idering the rival contentions and the material availabie cn rec >rd, the trial Court dismissed the petition as the appellant/ petiti rner/ pla intif f f.iiled to establish the 1;rima facie case and^rralan:e of convenience in order to grant injunction against the resp rndents/ defendants. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/ petiti rner/ plaintif f has preferred the present Civil Miscellanecus .A ppeal.

¶66

Heard Ie rrned Counsel appearing for the appellant/ petitioner/ plair tiff, Iearned Counsel appea:ring for respondents/ de endants 1 to 10, Iearned Counsel appr:aring for respondents/de iendants 11 to 13 and perused the entire material available on reci )rd

¶67

Learnecl Counsel for the appellant/petition':r/plaintiff would submit that in a suit for partition, the rights of the agitating [,artie shall be safeguartlerl and that by ig;noring the said legal iispcc, the Lrial Court committed grave error of Iaw in

¶68

¶69

¶70

dismissing the applicarion fited by rhe plaintiff. He further submits that under the 'Fatwa' r,r,hich was issued by^,Jamia Nizamia', the entitlement of the appellant herein in the properties left over by her deceased son, is clearly mentioned and that there is absolutely no dispute at all in respect of the rights of the appellant in the suit scheduled properties as per the said Fatwa. He further submits that even after filing of the suit by the appellant herein, the respondents have already alienated some of the properties and in the sale deed which was executed by them, they claimed that they are the only legal heirs of late Siraj Anwar. He further submits that the kial Court ought to have considered the fact that if the respondents succeed in alienating the suit scheduled properties then nothing will be left for partition of the properties and that the suit itself would become infrucfuous. He further submits that the trial Court committed an error of law in holding that unless the suit is decided on merits and finding is recorded that the propertics arc Matruka properties, the appellant's share cannot be determined_ l{e further submits that the trial Court.ought to have safeguarded the rights of the

appellan: hert in by restraining the respondents from alienating or creatirrg th rd party interest in the suit scheduled properties pending disposai of the suit. He also submits that though the appellant has proved prima facie case and balance of convenience in her favour, the trial Court erroneously rejected the application and, the::efore , prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the orcler passed I v the trial Court.

¶75

Learnec Counsel for the respondents/ defendants would submit tl'rat rte appellant/petitioner/plaintiff has no right to fite thc, suit seeki n11 partition of the petition scheduled properties since none o the properties are Matruka propert ies of late Mohammatl iiraj Anwar, who is the husband of the 1,t respondent a rd father of respondents 2 to 10. It is further submittcd tha the appellant herein is not entitled for any share in the scheduled property since the respondenb/defendants are the owners of the ;ait{ property. It is also submitted that the appellant miseral''lv fail trl to nrake out prima facie case in her favour anc] also failed to r11'1ys Lralance of convenience in her favour to grant

¶76

(

¶77

¶78

any interim order and, therefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application.

¶79

Considering rival contentions and perusing the material available on record, the point for consideration is whether the appellant/ petitioner/ plaintiff is entitled to claim interim injunction against the respondents/defendants during pendency of the suit?

¶80

The appellant,/ petitioner/plaintiff claimed interim injunction in her favour, restraining the respondentsr/defendants from alienating the petition scheduled property in favour of third parties. \Arhen the appellant/petitioner/plaintiff approaches the Court seeking a discretionary relief of temporary injunction during pendency of the suit, she has to establish pima facie case, tralance of convenience and irreparable loss that would be caused irr the event no injunction is granted. These are the prime considerations or sine qua non to grant temporary injunction tluring perrder-rcy of the suit.

, -.^J-,

=7'.

In the ir stant case, according to the appellant/ petitioner/ plaintiff, as pe'the'Fatwa' which was issued by 'JarrLia Nizamia', the entitlemen t of the appellant herein in the properties lef t over by her riecea;ed sory is clearly mentioned and that there is absolutely no dispute at all in respect of the rights of the appellan: in rhe suit scheduted properties. According to the respondentsr/ r lefendants, there are no Matruka properties availablc' for 1ra11i1isn and as such the appellant/ pia intiif is not entitled 1or ary share in the property in question. A perusal of the affidavit f led in support of the petition, it is evide,nt that the appellant,/ pet.tioner/plaintiff is residing in H.No.8-2-708 / 7 / 1, but not in tl e petition scheduled property. Even as per the version of the appeilant/ plaintiff, the respondents are also having shares in tl e property in question. The share of the appeliant/pet itioner/plaintiff claimed is^'1. / 66 or 56 sirares out of 336 shares.^;urther, respondents 1 to 10 filed an undertaking affidavit befo'e the trial Court that in case of pla;ntiffs succeedecl in the sui! tl Le resDondents are ready to pay "I / 6rr :;hare or thc ( value o; the 1/6th share to the plaintiff without claiming anv

¶85

¶86

¶87

equity. As^there is^{a dispute regarding natur'e of the property} either Matruka^{property or not, we find no' prima} facie^{case 'tn} favour of the.^{appellant/ petitioner/plain tif f for grant of} temporary injunction.^{Theissues whether the suit propertiesare} Matruka^{.properties or not andwhetherthe} appellant/petitioner/plaintiff^{is entitled for a share in the suit} scheduled proPerty^{have to be decidedduring the course of trial} in the suit.

¶88

The other requirement^{for grant of temporary injunctionis} balance of convenience.^{To see balance of convenience,it is} necessary to^{comParecaseof parties,comparative mischief or} inconvenience which^{is likely to sue from withholdingthe} injunction will be^{graterthan whichis likely to arrive from} granting it. A Division^{Benchof this Court in Duttaala llaiah Vs'} Duottala Ramakiahl,held^{as under:}

¶89

"Since the lands are involved in the^{suit, anv transfer of} property pendente litu^{would6s sg[]jectto the ultimate} decision in the suit. If^{transfer of land is made' the}

¶90

'^{1997(6) ALT95 (D.B)}

purchaser hi.s to take it at his own risk But merely because of thag it would not be fit an<J proper in the backlJround of the fac ts ar d circumstances of the case, to re:;h.ain the respontlents from alienating properties. Hon,ever, if the plaintif f ulti mately succeeds in partition suit, d,:fendants and thr:ir al enees penrlente /lfe cannot claim any erluity in final decree proceedings. When these two factors are decidecl, the question of irreparable injury does not arise because' it wilr go as a sequel to the barance of convernience.,,

¶95

In the in tant case, the appe[ant/petitioner/pl;rintiff failed to establish tha t the balance of convenience is in her favour and that she tvill te put to inconvenience in case no injunction is granted. T'hus, he appellant/petftioner/plaintiff miserably failed to establish all the three ingrcdients, which are sine qrn non for grant of tempor rry injunction during pendency of the strit.

¶96

For the a oresaid reasons, rve find no perversifu, illegality, irregularity or nanifest error in the impugned orrler passed by the trial Court, war.ranting interference of this Court. Therefore, the findings of he trial Court are hereby confirmed and as such the appeal sans nerit ancl is lialrk, to be dismissecl.

¶97

¶98

¶99

Accordingly, the Civii }liscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, confirming the order, dated 22.01.20.19 passed in I.A.No.1205 of 2017 n O.S.No.707 of 2017 oi.r the file oi the lll-Additional Chief Judge,^{City Civil Court, I Iyderabac'l. Howci,:r, the trial Courtis} directed to c-lecide the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably vrithin a period of Six months fror.n thc ciate of receipt of a copy of this order. There shalI be no order as to costs.

¶100

Miscellaneous petitions perrding, if any, shall stand closed

¶101

¶102

SD/-K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The lll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. One CC to Sri Pawan Kumar Agarwal, Advocate IOPUCI 3. One CC to Sri S. M. Rafee, Adv:ocate IOPUCI 1. 9ne^{CCto Sri V. RajasekharReddy, Advocat-e} TOPUCI 5. Two CD Copies 6. One Spare Copy gbr \y\

HIGH COIJRT

DATED: 12t0|t2022

JUDGMENT

.a
15 'iEP 2$17,
;,:<br>

¶108

CMA.No.145 <fi 2019

¶109

DISMISSIt\IG I'HE CMA WITHOUT CO STS

¶110

22' @

Mr.Yousuf Begum v. Mrs.Jameela Fatima and 12 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Yousuf Begum v. Mrs.Jameela Fatima and 12 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Land Acquisition Officer and Vs Beri Bakkaiah

Nagi Reddy, Vs The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh Thorugh

Nagi Reddy Vs The Govt. Of A.P.

P.J. Prashanth , P. Prashanth Vs Smt. P. Revathi

P.J. Prashanth , P. Prashanth Vs Smt. P. Revathi

E.V. Venu Gopal Vs The Special Deputy Collector