Dismissed

Mohammed Jahangir Saheb (died per Lrs) v. Mohamed Dawood

Telangana HC2 Aug 2022CRP/3271/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging a trial Court order that rejected a plaintiff's amendment to the plaint. The Court found no merit in the revision as the trial Court correctly exercised its discretion, noting a lack of evidence for joint possession and finding the application dismissed on valid reasons.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed confirming orders in IA No. 1295 of 2017; dependent miscellaneous petitions dismissed as infructuous.

Mohammed Jahangir Saheb (died per Lrs) Vs Mohamed Dawood — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P,SREE SUDHA

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3271 OF 2018

¶6

Petition under Article 227 ot the Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order dated-06.05.2018 in 1.A.No.1295 of 2017 in O.S.No.480 ol 2012, on the file of the Court of the Spl. Sessions Judge for Trial of cases under SCs and STs(POA) Act,19B9-Cum-Vll Addl.District and Sessions Judge, R R District at L B Nagar.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mohammed Jahangir Saheb (died per Lrs).

¶9

Mohammed Yousuf, Late Mohammed Jahangir Saheb, Aged about 55 years, Occ-Businiess, R/o. H.No.22-6-355, First Floor, Mandi Mir Alam,Hyderabad.

¶10

Mohammed Abdul Azeem, S/o. Late Mohammed JahangirSaheb, Aged about 51 years, Occ-AdvccateT No.22-7-74011, First Floor, Mandi Mir Alan, Hyderabad presently Residing at Louisvlle,KY.USA.,rept by his GPA Holder Mohammed Kazim Shah, S/o Late Shah Mohammed Saheb, Aged 48 years, Occ-Business, R/o H.No.14-1-1341114 Sitararnpe.t, New Aghapura, Nampally, Hydercibad.

¶11

Mohammed Abdullah, S/o. Late Mohammed JahangirSaheb, Aged about 47 years, Om Business, R/o.22-6-350 to 354, First Floor, Mandi Mir Alam,

¶12

' Hyderabad.

¶13

Mohammed Shoeb, S/o. Late Mohammed Jahangirsaheb, Aged about 45 years, Occ- Business R/o.22-6-350 to 354, First Floor, Mandi Mir Alam, Hyderabad

¶14

Smt. Rafeeq Sultan a, Dlo. Late Mohammed JahangirSaheb, Wo. Mr. Ehtesham Ahmed, Aged about 57 years, Occ- Household, R/o. H.No.23-l716/1, Moghalpura, Hyderabad.

¶15

...REVISION PETITIONERYPETITIONER-PLAINTIFF 1 TO3 AND 5 TO 7

¶16

AND

¶17

1 Mohamed Dawood, Sahad, Aged about 73 years, Occ- Cycle Stand Business, R/o. H.No.10-3-29111lN1 , Near Auto Stand, Vijayanagar Colony, Hyderabad.

¶18

1. Mohammed Ali, S/o. Late Mohammed KhajaSaheb, (DIED Per LRs R6 to R21)Aged about 68 years, Occ- Business, R/o. 22-6-860, AhateKarrar Jung, Mandi Mir Alam, Hyderabad.

¶19

J Mahammed lbrahim, S/o. Late Mohammed KhajaSaheb, Aged about 59 years, Occ- Business, R/o. 22-6-860, AhateKarrar Jung, Mandi Mir Alam, Hyderabad.

¶20

x].i.t

¶21

Mohammed Farooq, S/o. Late Mohammed KhajaSaheb,^{Aged about53} years, Occ- E usiness, R/o. 22-6-860, AhateKarrar Jung, Ivlandi Mir Alam, Hyderabad.

¶22

Mohammed Arif, S/o. Late Mohammed Kha.iaSaheb,^{Aged about 52 years,} Occ- Busines s, R/o. 22-6-860, AhateKarrar Jung. Mandi Mir Alam, Hyderabad.

¶23

Mohammed Atrdul Wahed, S/o. Late Mohammed KhajaSaheb,^{Aged about 49} years. Occ- Business, R/o. 22-6-860, AhateKarrar Jung, Mandi Mir Alam, Hyderabad.

¶24

Mohammed Ahdul Wahab, S/o.Late Mohammed KhajaSaheb, Aged about 45 years, Occ- Business, R/o. 22-6-860, AhateKarrar Jung, Mandi Mir Alam, Hyderabad

¶25

B. Mrs. Kubra Begum, Wo. Mohammed Ahsanullah, Aged about 70^years, Occ- Househ,rld, R/o. 22-6-860, AhateKarrar Jung, Mandi Mir Alam, Hyderabad.

¶26

Razia Fatima, Wo.MohammedTaherand D/o.Late Mohammed KhajaSaheb, Aged about 67 years R/o. 22-6-860, AhateKarrar Jung, Mandi Mir Alam, Hyderabad.

¶27

10.Yaseen Fatima, Wo. Shaik Mohammed Osman and D/o. Late Mohammed KhajaSaheb, Aged about 65 years, Occ-Household, R/o. 22-6-860,r\hateKarrar Jung, Mandi Mir Alam, Hyderabad.

¶28

Mehboob Fatima, Wo. Late Mohammed Hameeduddinand D/o. Late Mohammed KhajaSaheb, Aged about 57 years, Occ-Household, R/o. 22-6-860,r\hate Karrar Jung, Mandi Mir Alam, Hyderabad

¶29

12.Waheed Fatima, D/o. Late Mohammed KhajaSahab, Aged about 47 years, Occ- Household, R/o.. 22-6-860, AhateKarrar Jung, Mandi Mir Alam, Hyderabad.

¶30

'13.Mcihammed O:;man, S/o. Late Moyhammed Jahangir Sahab, Aged about 53 years, Occ- Business, R/o. H.No.22-6-350 to 354, Second Floor, Mandi Mir Alam, Hyderab rbad.

¶31

14.Smt. Nafees Begum, Wo. Late Mohammed JehangirSahab, Aged about 67 years, Occ- Household, R/o. H.No.22-6-350 to 354, First Floor, Mandi Mir Alarn, Hyderababad.

¶32

....RESPONOENTS/DEFENDANTS

¶33

l5.Mohammed Orner, S/o. Late Mohammed Jahangir Saheb, Aged about 49 years, Occ-Business,R/o.22-6-350 to 354, First Floor, Mandi Mir Alam, Hyderabad.

¶34

(Respondent No.15 is not necessary)

¶35

EsPoNDENrs

¶36

16.Rasheeda surtana, wo. Late .ror,"rruo'fiiil"? t!?::J

¶37

17.Mohd Moizuddin Gulrez, S/o. Late Mohammed Ali aged 46 years.

¶38

18.Mohd. Ahmed ltltamash, S/o. Late Mohammed Ali, aged 44 years.

¶39

l9.SalehaFatim, D/po. Late Mohammed Ali, aged 42yearc.

¶40

20.Wassem Fatima, D/o. Late Mohammed Ali, aged 40 years.

¶41

2l.Qureshi Fatima, Dio. Late Mohammed Ali, aged 38 years All are R/o. 22-6-860, Ahatekarrar Jung, Mandir Mir Alam, Hyderabad.

¶42

tR! 16^{to 21 are brought on record as LRs of the deceasedR2 as per} C.O.dt.21.07.2022 in l.A.No. 2ot 20191

¶43

...RESPONDENTS

¶44

lA NO: 2 OF 2018

¶45

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in OS No.4B0 of 2012 on the file of Special Sessions Judge for Trial of cases under SCs and Sfs (POA) Act, 1989 cum Vll Additional District and Sessions Judge, R.R. District at L.B. Nagar pending disposal of CRP in the interest of justice.

¶46

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRl. DAMODAR MUNDRA

¶47

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : JANARDHAN REDDY KOTHA

¶48

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶49

¶50

:${

¶51

HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA

¶52

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3271 OF 2018

¶53

ORDER

¶54

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the orders in IA No. 1295 of 2Ol7 in OS No. 48O of 2012, Dated 06.04.2018 on the hle of Spl. Sessions Judge for Trial of cases under SCS & STs (POA) Act, 1989-cum-VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy I)istrict at L.B. Nagar.

¶55

In the said suit plaintiff and defendant No- 1 are real brothers and clefendant Nos. 2 to 12 are the sons and daughters of the elder brother of the plaintiff namely late Mohammed Kjaja Saheb. During the pendency of the suit piaintiff filed an Interlocutory Application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment ol-the plaintiff by inserting Paragragh 8-A and 8-B in the plaint. In the affidavit it is stated that he is also deposing on behalf of plaintiffs 2, 4,5, 6 and 7. He stated that his father late Moulvi Haji Mohammed Jehangir Saheb filed the suit for partition against the defendants 1 to 12 regarding the suit schedule properly bearing Sy.No. 229, admeasuring Ac.8- 10 gts situated at Gagan Pahad Village. Defendants 13 and 14 are not necessary parties as no relief is claimed against them. His father passed away on 04.08.2013 and after his death they were

¶56

¶57

C.R.P. No. 3271 of 2O7a

¶58

brought on record as L.Rs. The defendants in their written statement stated that plaintiffs executed registered release deed vide document No. 1951 of 1983 and released the suit schedule properfy in his favour and also delivered physical possession. D- 1 filed suit for declaration and perpetual injunction. Before commencement of the trial defendants dispossessed the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property in the intervening night of 3Om September/ 1't October,2Ol7. As such he intended to bring on record and sought amendment and requested the court to permit the same. He filed the said application on 23.07.2017.

¶59

In a counter frled by the 1"t defendaxt, he stated that the suit is fa1se, frivolous and vexatious and the interlocutory application is not maintainable. He stated that he has been in joint possession since 1977 and thereafter from O4.04.1O83 by riirtue of Registered Release Deed he has been in possession ald enjoyment of the suit schedule property and property is vested with him and he is absolute and exclusive owner of the same. The suit is hled in the year 2Ol2 bttt the petitioners are dragging the litigation and an additional issue was framed at the stage of commencing the trial. Though petitioner stated in the plaint that they are in joint possession but contrary to the

¶60

C.R.P. No. 3277 of 2Ol8

¶61

¶62

same they prayed for recovery of possession and no$' their allegation in the affidavit that they have already^prayed for recovery of pc,ssession in the plaint as delivery of possession is sought. It ciearly shows that they are not in^joint possession and to save the Court fee simply stated that thei- are in^j oin I possession, nrutually conflicting prayers cannot be sustained. Moreover, neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants 2 to 4 are in possession, as such the question of dispossessing them on 01.10.2017 does not arise. They have not paid proper Court lee under Sectior' 34 (1) of A.P. Court fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1956. As such the amendment sought for cannot be considered.

¶63

The trird Court after considering the arguments of both sides at length dismissed the application against which the C.R.P. is preferred in which the revision petitioners contended that no prejudice will be caused to the respondents if the plaint is amended try adding the additional para No.Ba and 8b after paragraph No.8 in the plaint. They frled rejoinder to the written statement denying the execution of release deed in their favour. The trial Court observed that no oral or documentary evidence is placed to prove that they were in^joint possession and the respondents herein removed the furniture and fixtures

¶64

C.R.P. No. 3271 of 20la

¶65

¶66

¶67

and dispossessed them on the intervcning night of 30/01-102017 ar,d they will produce the evidence before the trial Court. The trial Court cannot go into the merits of the pleadings at the stage of allowing the amendment petition. Therefore requested the Court to set aside the order.

¶68

The trial Court extracted the contention of both sides in the plaint and written statement. Plaintiff No. 1 Mohammed Jehangir father of plaintiff Nos. 2 to 7 filed suit against defendant No.1 Mohammed Dawood who is real brother and defendant Nos. 2 to 7 are sons and daughters of elder brother of the plaintiff Late Mohammed Khaja Saheb. Plaintiffs stated that they^jointly purchased the suit schedule property in Sy.No. 229, admeasuring Acs.OB.10 gts of Gaga-npahad Village through a registered sale deed bearing document No. 343 of 1977 and lqter they constructed poultry sheds and started poultry business but sustained heavy loss in the business and closed the same. Later they converted the suit schedule property into a truck halting station as it is located abutting to the National High Way No.7 and the income derived from it being shared among themselves. Even after demise of elder brother in the year 1982 the suit schedule property is not yet partitioned when he became sick he requested for partition. Plaintiffs stated that

¶69

C-R-P- No. 3271 of 2Ol8

¶70

¶71

¶72

on 24.O4.2012 a meeting was conducted in the resldence of the plaintiff. Plaintiff requested the defendants to milke partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property but the defendants 2 to 12 refused to do so. As such plaintiff is claiming 1 /4th share.

¶73

Defendant No. 1 in his written statement admitted joint possession, construction of the poultry farm, sustaining losses and stated thilt partnership deed was dissolved on i. I 1.1981. They requested the defendant No. 1 to purchase the suit schedule pro[)erty and accordingly executed registered release deed on 04.04.1983 vide document No. 1951/ 1983 in favour of defendant No. I and poss;ssion was delivered along with original sale deed and link documents by receiving considerable amounts and since then the defendant No. 1 is in exclusive possession of the suit schedule property. As such the question of partition among the plaintiff, defendants 2 to 12 does not arise. Defendant No. 1 Iiled O.S. No. 718 of 1983 for declaration and perpetual injunction against the plaintiff and delendants 2 to 12 regarrling the same property. They filed written statements aclmitting defendant No.l is the absolute owner of the property. Therefore the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S. No. 718 of 1983 operates as res judicata and he enclosed

¶74

C.R.P. No. 3271 of 2OL8

¶75

¶76

the said Judgment. In the main suit D-2, D-3, D-8 to D-12 did not lile any counters. In the written statement of D-4 it is contended that piaintiff and defendant No. 1 colluded with each other and their father late Mohd. Khaja Saheb paid entire sale consideration on behalf of defendant No.1 exclusively by taking the undue advantage of death of their father on 19.06.1982 they created false documents to usurp their share. The ciaim of D-1 based on release deed is false and it is not binding on these defendants. The plaintiffs filed rejoinder. Issues were settled, issue No.2 is whether the suit is barred by res^judicata in O.S. No. 187 of i983. In view of^judgment and decree in OS No. 187 of 1983 the suit is coming up for trial. The trial Court observed that on perusal of the certified copy of Judgment in O.S. No. 718 of 1983, dated 27.12.1,983 he filed the suit for declaration of title in which the defendants admitted the bwnership and possession of defendant No.1 and also stated that they executed release deed in his favour and was inserted in the revenue records and also recorded no objection to decree the suit. They have not filed any oral or documentary evidence to show that they are in joint possession of the suit schedule property and D- 1 removed furniture and fixtures and dispossessed them on the intervening night of 30/01-10-2017

¶77

C.R.P. No. 327), of 2018

¶78

¶79

\ 1

¶80

from thc suit schedule^{property and accordingly statedthat they} are not entitl()d for insertion of Paras 8A and BB^{in the plaintas} claimed by them.

¶81

7 . This Court can interfere with the order of the trial Cour in case there ,s any patent error under revisional^jurisdiction as the scope of this Court is limited. In this regard the trial Court after considering the rivai contentions dismissed the application by assigning valid reasons. Therefore, this Court finds no merits in the revision. Accordingly, the CRP is dismissed.

¶82

In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed by confirming the orders in IA No. 1295 of 2017 in OS No. 480 of 2012, DaLed Oti.O4.2O18 on the file of Spl. Sessions Judge for Trial of cases under SCS & STs (POA) Act, 1989-cum-VII Addl. District & Sessjons Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

¶83

As a seqr,Lel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

¶84

stand dismisse<l as infmctuous. No order as to costs

¶85

SD/-I.N^AGALAKS DEPUTY^REGI AR //TRUE^COPY// SECTION FFICER

¶86

To,

¶87

The Special^{Sessions Judgefor Trial of Cases Under SCs & STs(POA) Act'} 1989-cum-Vll^{Additionaloilt'ii a s"i"ions Judge' R-R District at L B Nagar} 2. o." c?tl^{snr. rjnrtroonRMUNDRA'Advocate .[oPUCl} J, il; ;c^{io snr. Lnr'rnnoHnnneoov korHn' Advocate [oPUC]} 4. Two CD^CoPies

. One SPare^CoPY

SB ,/ d

,rl

HIGH COURI'

DATED:0210812022

SlriiC
/'
Ii
[E [tI ?$[
,-?

¶94

ORDER

¶95

CRP.No.3271 of 2018'

¶96

DISMISSING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS

¶97

Mohammed Jahangir Saheb (died per Lrs) v. Mohamed Dawood

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Jahangir Saheb (died per Lrs) v. Mohamed Dawood

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

T Mangamma, Nalgonda Dist and 1 Other Vs N Bakkamma, Nalgonda Dist and 2 Others

Mr. Shyam Sunder Vs M/s Omega Shelters Pvt. Ltd.

Ramini Shivaraju Vs Pareedula Yadaiah and 4 others

Sayeeuddin , Sayeed Baba, and Anr. Vs Azam Bee, Nizamabad and 3 Others

Yaragani Yagaiah Vs M/s Andhra Bank

Madhubashi Vijaya Saradhi Vs K.H.Sukanya