Dismissed

Khairunnisa v. Md. Abdul Gaffar

Telangana HC5 Jun 2023CCCA/379/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against judgment dismissing suit for possession and alleging oral gift/will. Trial court found documents illusory and property devolved via intestate succession under Muslim law to all legal heirs with representation to sons. Appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed confirming judgment dismissing suit and allowing partition counter claim; no order as to costs.

Khairunnisa Vs Md. Abdul Gaffar — Succession and Inheritance | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

1321s)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA^RANI

¶6

cITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL^{NO: 379 OF 2018}

¶7

Appeal under Section 96 of C.P.C against the Judgment^{and Decree Dated} 15-02-2018, made in O.S. No. 31'l OF^{2007 on the file of the Court of the lX} Additional Chief Judge, City Civil^{Court, Hyderabad}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Mrs. Khairunnisa, D/o. Late Mohd.^{AbdulSattar,Aged about 50 years,} Occ:Doctor, R/o. H.No.^{17-3-19818, Yesrub Nagar, Yakutpura, Hyderabad.}

¶10

.,.APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF

¶11

AND

¶12

Md. Abdul Gaffar, S/o.^{Latetr.4ohd Abdul Sattar, Aged about 58 years,Occ:} Business, R/o. H.No.^{17-3-19818'Yesrub Nagar, Yakutpura, Hyderabad'}

¶13

l/ohd. Abdul Jabbar, ,^{S/o. Late Mohd. Abdul Sattar, Aged about 62 years,} Occ:Govt. Employee,^{H.No17-3-198/8, Yesrub Nagar, Yakutpura,} Hyderabad.

¶14

tr/ohd. lshaq, S/o.^{Late Mohd. Abdul Sattar, Aged about 57 years, Occ: Govt'} - erpioy"e, Fi/o. tt.No. 17-3-198/8, Yesrub Nagar, Yakutpura, Hyderabad'

¶15

Rafeeo Unnisa, W/o.^{lvl.A.Raheem, Aged about 60 years, Occ: Teacher,R/o} ri.r'ro.ie-e-asiln-+9,^{Lyotni Bagh, Kuinarwadi Colony, Edi Bazar, Hyderabad'}

¶16

5, Rahmath Unnisa^{Begum, W/o.MoinAkhtar, Aged about 56 years, Occ: Govt'} - emptoye", R/o. Eidg-ayah, Yakutpura Colony' Hyderabad'

¶17

(Defendants2to5added/amendedasperordersinlANo.lS63/2009dt.8-122009)

¶18

.,.DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS

¶19

IANO:3OF2 018

¶20

Petition under S3ction 148 r/w 151 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstances} stated in the affidav t filed in support of^{the petition, the High Courl may be} pleased to suspenc the Judgment and decree in OS,NO.311/2007, daled.15lO2l2O18 on ti e file of the lX^{Addl.Chief Judge, CCC, Hyderabad.}

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶22

Petition under Section 15'1 CPC^praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court^{maybe pleased to} grant stay of all further proceedings dt.31-01-2019 in pursuance to^judgment and preliminary decree dt,'1 5-02-2018 passed in OS no.31 1 of 2007 on the file of the court of IX Additional C)hief Judge, C ty Civil Court,^Hyderabad.

¶23

lA NO: 2 OF 2019

¶24

Between

¶25

tt/ohd. Abdul Jabbar, S/o, Late tt4ohd. Abdul Sattar, Aged aboutT0years, Occ:Govt. Emplcyee, H. No.8-3-40/24lA, Kinga Colony,^{Shastripuram,} Hyderabad.

¶26

Mohd. lshaq, S/c. Late Mohd. Abdul Sattar, Aged^{about 65 years, Occ: Govt} Employee, R/o, tl.No. 17-2-106411,^{Rein Bazar, Yakutpura, Hyderabad,}

¶27

Rafeequnnisa, \t1ilo, Late Ir/.A.Raheem,^{Aged about 68 years,Occl Teacher,} R/o. H.No.18-8-/.51-A-49, Jyothi Bagh, Kumarwadi^{Colony, Edi Bazar,} Hyderabad.

¶28

Rahmathunnisa 3egum, W/o, I\4oln Akhtar, Aged about^{64 years,Occ:} Pharmacist, R/o. H. No. 17-3-11831 , besides^{lmambada Edgah, near SRT} Colony, Yakutpura Colony, Hyderabad

¶29

,..PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS² TO⁵

¶30

AND

¶31

1, tr,4rs. Khairunnisa, Dio. Late Mohd. Abdul Sattar,^{Aged about58 years,} Occ:Doctor, R/o H.No. 17-3-19818, Yesrub^{Nagar, Yakutpura, Hyderabad.}

¶32

...RESPONDENT/APPELLANT

¶33

l,4d. Abdul Gaff:rr, S/o, Late N,4ohd Abdul Sattar, Aged about 58 years, Occ Business, R/o. F.No. 17-3-198/8, Yesrub Nagar, Yakutpura Hyderabad.

¶34

,..RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT No.1

¶35

Petition under {iection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in,;upport of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the orders of slatus quo dated 18-7-2019 passed in CCCA No.379 of 2018.

¶36

lA NO: 3 OF 2019

¶37

Between:

¶38

Mohd. Abdul Jabbar, S/o. Lale Motrd. Abdul Sattar, Aged about 70 years, Occ:Govt. Emotovee. H. No. 8-3_40l24lA, Ki"g;'C;i;;,y- Snastiipuia,ril'^-, Hyderabad.

¶39

Mohd. lshaq, S/o. Late Mohd. Abdul Sattar, Aged about 65 years, Occ: Govt. Emptoyee, R/o. H.No. 1t -2-1 o64t 1, nein E"iii vliu'6ura, uyOerabaO.

¶40

Rafeequnnisa, Wo. Late M.A.Raheem, Aged about 6g years, Occ: Teacher. R/o. H. No. 1 o-B-45 1 -A-4s .tvotn i eash,' xufi il;;l'ct,i,i,; E!IB;=;;.",",, Hyderabad.

¶41

Rahmathunnisa Beoum W/o. lr,4oin Akhtar, Aged about 64 years, Occ: pharmacrst, R/o. H."No.'17-i-rierii, L3riilJi;ffiil; Edsah, near SRr Colony, Yakutpura Colony, HyderabJd^{-- --}

¶42

.,.PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5

¶43

AND

¶44

Mrs. Khairunnisa, D/o. Late ^ltilohd. Abdul Sattar, Aged about 5g years, occ:Doctor, R/o. H.No. 17-3_1satl, V".[b N"s;;, %irYiJru, Hyo"r"u"o,

¶45

...RESPONDENT/APPELLANT

¶46

lVd. Abdul Gaffar. S/o. late l,4ohd Abdul Sattar, Aged about 58 years, Occ Business, R/o. H.No. 17-3-198/8, yes;ub Na6; V;iutpura, Hyderabad.

¶47

...RESpONDENT/RESpONDENT No.1

¶48

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited in support.of the petitio;, iie High itrrt ,ry be pteased To vacate the stay order dated 27-3-2019 passed iri t.R.wo.t oi zol'e in cccn No 379 of 2018 staying the passing of finar decree in o.s.No.st l of 2oo7 aid recovery of costs in view of the orders dated 31-1-201g passed in r.A.No.ioi 2018 in CCCA No.3Z9 of 20.19.

¶49

lA NO: 4 OF 201 I

¶50

Petition under section 15i cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it-,," Higr-, court may be preased ro permit the petitioners herein to withdraw the amoint of Rs.20,0oo^'rrLl"o t" !qy9^{oeeldeposited by the petitioner herein to the creditof suit in} os trto.it t ot 2007 on the file of tX Addl. Chief Judge, City Clvil Court, Hyderabad as per dateJ 27-3-2019 passed in t.A.No.1 of 2019 in CCbA No.379 of 2018.

¶51

lA NO: 5 OF 2019

¶52

Between

¶53

Ir,4rs. Khairunnisa, [)/o. Late tt/ohd. Abdul Sattar,^{Aged about 50 years,} Occ:Doctor, R/o. H.No.^{17-3-19818,Yesrub Nagar, Yakutpura, Hyderabad.}

¶54

...APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF

¶55

AND

¶56

It/d. Abdul Gaffar, S/o. Late^{lVohdAbdul Sattar, Aged about 58 years,Occ:} Business, R/o. H.\o. 17-3-198/8,^{Yesrub Nagar, Yakutpura, Hyderabad.}

¶57

Mohd. Abdul Jabbar, , S/o. Late^lt4ohd. Abdul^{Sattar, Aged about 62 years,} Occ:Govt. Emplovee, H.No. 17-3-198/8, Yesrub Nagar,^Yakutpura, Hyderabad.

¶58

Mohd. lshaq, S/o. Late lVohd.^{Abdul Sattar, Aged about 57 years, Occ:Govt.} Employee, R/o. H.No. 17-3-198/8 Yesrub Nagar,^{Yakutpura, Hyderabad.}

¶59

Rafeeq Unnisa, V//o. M.A.Raheem, Aged about 60^years, Occ:^Teacher,R/o. H,No.18-8-451-A.49, Jyoth Bagh Kumaruadi Colony,^{Edi Bazar, Hyderabad}

¶60

Rahmath Unnisa Begum, W/o. l\4o n Akhtar,^{Aged about 56 years, Occ: Govt} Employee, R/o. Eidgayah, Yakutpura Colony, Hyderabad,

¶61

RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS

¶62

Jamia Nizamia, Fept,, by its Secretary, 20-3-160, Hussaini^{Alam, Shiblijung,} ...PROPOSED RESPONDENT No. 6

¶63

Hyderabad-500064

¶64

Petition under^,)rder I Rule 10 R/W Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated n the affidavit tiled in support of the^petition, the High Court may be pleased to implead^proposed respondent as respondent No.6ⁱⁿ CCCA No.379 of 20'8, all interlocutory applications with all consequential amendments.

¶65

Counsel for the Appellant: PARTY lN PERSON

¶66

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri SYEDA BATOOL

¶67

Counsel forthe Respondent No.2 to 5: Sri MANIKLAL YADAV

¶68

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶69

THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

¶70

C.C.C.A No .379 0F 2018

¶71

JUDGMENT

¶72

This appeal is filed by the. appellant-plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 15.02.2018 passed in O.S No.31 | of 20O:on the frle of IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in dismissing the suit f,rled by her foi recovery of possession, damages and perpetual injunction and allowing the counter claim of defendant Nos.2 to 5 and dividing the suit schedule property into nine shares and allotting two such shares to each of the three sons and one such share to each ofthe three daughters

¶73

The parlies are hereinafter refered as arrayed before the trial court.

¶74

The case of the plaintiff in bdef was that she was the absolute owner and possessor of property bearing No.l7-3-198/8 admeasuring 566 sq. yds., equivalent to 428 sq.mts., situated at Yesrub Nagar, Yakuthpura, Hyderabad by virtue of registered Will Deed dated 08.11.1993 vide document No.88 of 1993 and notarized gift deed dated 25.11.1997. She further contended that her father

¶75

DT.GRR,J CCCtI No.379^{of 2018}

¶76

executedHibargiftdeedon22.l2.|gg.Twithpossessionandthesame was reduced into^{writing and notarizedon 24J2'1997Duringthe} lifetime of her^{lather,Mohd,AbdulSattar,he settled all his sons and} daughters by 6,iving^{trnancral suppoftand also perfomed their} mariages at his^{own cost b1'spending huge amounts'He had given} the share of^{goldornaments to his wife' The defendant No 1} developed^{greerly eye over the suit schedulepropertyandcreateda} false document^{and obtained the signatureof their fatherand tried to} change the title^{to his name. The defendantNo.1 along with cousins} threatened thei:^{father to vacate the suit schedulepremisesand} occupied major^{porlion of the suit scheduleproperty and was claiming} ownership. The^{father of the plaintifflodged a report before the Rein} BazarPolicet,.ttakelegalactionbutthedefendantmanagedthe police. Keeping all^{the said instances in mind, the fatherof the} plaintiffexecutedafi.eshgiliwithpossessionon22j2.l997whtch was reduced into writing^{ot't21.12.1997and notarizedin favour of the} plaintiff.^'fhe plaintilfs^{tather died on 05 02'2000'The plaintiff'} being a Unani^{Doctol,had takencare of her parents till their death.} After the death of their.father.^{the defendantNo.l occupied the suit} premises in thc year 2000.^{The defendantNo.1 continuedhis mis-}

¶77

¶78

DT.GRR,J CCCA No.379 of 2018

¶79

behaviour and i1l treatment with the praintiff. He manhandled the plaintiff a number of times, injured her eye and fractured her regs. The plaintiff lodged complaints before the Rein Bazar police on 05.05.2000, 01.10.2006 and 09.10.2006, but the defendant No.t managed the police with the influence of one of his brothers, who was working in CBCID department. The defendant No.l was trying to show the plaintiff as an insane lady. He was continuously harassing her by stealing her food items, money etc., and prayed to restrain the defendant No.l perpetually and also to pay damages for the use and occupation of the schedule property @ Rs.3,000/- per month from the date of suit till the date of handing over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit schedule property to her.

¶80

The defendant No.1 filed his written statement contending that the plaintiff was not the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff was his younger sister. He along with his elder brother Mohd. Abdul Jabbar performed the marriage of the plaintiffand spent huge amounts entering into the shoes ofhis father, who disappeared at the time of marriage by withering away his responsibilities to perform her marriage. The open plot of the suit

¶81

¶82

DT.GRR,J CCC.4 No.379^{of 2018}

¶83

schedule^{propertywas purchasedin the name of their father with the} funds accumula.ed^{by all of then.rand later on a house was constructed} thelein by laisrng^{loans. The said loanamount waspaid by the} defendant No.1.^{Duringthe ]ifetime of their father, the defendant} No.l performe,l the^{marriagesof his sisters and youngerbrother} including the ptaintilf.^{The lather of the defendantorallygiftedthe} suit sci.redule^{propefty in thlour of the defendant in the yeat1982} itself before all the^{familymembersincluding the plaintiffstating that} the defendant^{had incun'edhttge amountsfor performingthe marriages} of his younger brothers^{and sisters and also due to taking care of his} health during his^{ailmentin additionto helpinghim in making} construction of the^{suit house.The plaintiff in orderto avoid transfer} of the suit sche,lule^{properlyir.r favour of the defendant No. i as per the} oral gift made by^{their father, had createdall the documentsin her} favour includir^g the^{gitl and rvilldeed taking undue advantage of the} advanced age^{,tf their tather with a scheming design to knockaway} the same.

¶84

4.1 T.reir father had also executed^{a gift in favour of Jamta} Nizamia Institution under gili deed^{dated 17'11.1998in respect of the}

¶85

¶86

DT.CRR,J CCCA No.j79 of 2018

¶87

suit schedule property wherein the plaintiff was a signatory as a witness. The same was prepared at the instance of the plaintiff only as the stamp papers of the said instrument were in the name of plaintiff. Jamia Nizamia Institution had filed RC No.449 of 2000 on the file of the Hon'ble III. Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad against the defendant, his younger brother and the plaintiff for eviction stating that after executing the gift in favour of Jamia Nizamia Institution by , their father, they would become tenants under registered rental agreement dated 06.07.1999. The said case ended in compromise in favour of the defendant. The alleged will deed and gift deed were prepared by the plaintiff by forging the signatures of their father to usurp the suit schedule property. Even assuming without admitting that the plaintiff was the owner^'and possessor of the suit schedule property under the alleged will deed as well as the gift deed, she ceased her rights over the same in view of the gift transaction made by their father in favour of Jamia Nizamia Institution which was subsequent to the alleged transactions. The possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property was permissive which was given by the defendant No.1 on seeing the pathetic condition of the plaintiff.

¶88

¶89

DT.GRR.J CCC.A No.379^{of 201E}

¶90

The plaintiffha(l^{no right, title or interest in the suit scheduleprope(y} and prayed^{to dismiss the surt'}

¶91

Subsequently.^{the other brothers and sistersof the plaintiff} and defendant^{No.1,filed a petition to irnplead them as defendant} Nos.2 to 5.^{As per the oldels in I'A' No 1863 of 2009 dated} 08.I 2.2009,^{they were impleadedas defendant Nos'2 to 5'}

¶92

6.Defi:ndantNos.2to4filedwrittenstatementalongwitha counterclaimcontendingtlraLtheirfatherdiedintestateleavingbehind tlredefendantsandtheplaintitTashislegalheirsandr.epresentatives' The suit schedule^{propefty hact to be devolved upon all his legal heirs'} As per Muslint^{personal1au'. the entirescheduiepropefty was to be} divided into^{nineshares ancithe defendantNos'1 to 3 being sons were} entitled for tu'o^{shares each, while the three daughters namely the} plaintiff and tre^{defendantNos'4 and 5 wereentitledfor oneshare} each. During^{rhe life timeo1- \lohd' AbdulSattar it was made clear by} him among^{the familymetnbersand relativesthat his three sons i'e'} del'endant Nos.l^{to 3 alone ri ere entitled to share and partition the suit} schedule^{propefty atnongthernselvesequally and the daughters i'e'} plaintiff and <lef-endant^{Nos 4 and 5 wereentitled for an amount of}

¶93

¶94

Dt.GRR,J CCCA No.379 ol201 I

¶95

Rs.30,000/- eaih towards their 1/9th share in the suit schedule properly and accordingly, a memorandum of compromise was also filed to that effect in O.S No.552 of 1996 on the file of VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, but unfortunately, the same was not recorded by the Court.

¶96

6.1. They contended that all the legal heirs ofthe deceased

¶97

Mohd. Abdul Sattar were in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property exercising their ownership rights and all of them were entitled to a share in the suit schedule property as per Muslim personal law' Neither the praintiff nor the first defendant had any absolute ownership over the suit schedule property. The claim ofthe plaintiff and defendant No.1 for absolute ownership was baseless and incorrect. The documents created by them for making such baseless and untenable claims were invalid, null and void under law and never acted upon and prayed to dismiss the claim of the plaintiff and to pass a decree for partition and separate possession in favour of the defendant Nos.2 to 5 by allotting 6/9,h share to them in the suit schedule property, as against the plaintiff and defendant No.1 .

¶98

¶99

DT.GRR'l CCCA No,379^{o! 20lE}

¶100

7 The defendant^{No.5 filed a memo adopting the written} statement^{fi1ed t y del'endantNos 2 to 4'}

¶101

The^{defendantNo l filed an additional written statement} after impleading^{defendant Nos 2 to 5 contending that defendant} Nos.2 to 5^{wer.: not in possession of the propeftynol they had any} title over the^rrame. -f hey s'ere residing in their own houses in difl-erent areas^{of Hyderabadcity and the defendant Nos'4 and 5 were} residing with^{theil respeclivc husbands and children in their own} houses. They^{rvere never in possessionof the suit schedulepropefiy'} The possession^{of the plaintiffwas permissivein two roomsas the} defendant^{No. Ipelmittedhel to stay thereinseeing her pathetic} condition.^{But taking uncllreadvantageof the situation'with a} malafide intenlion,^{she ll1ed a suit without any material evidencein} suppoft of^{her claim. The allegedcompromise entered in O'S No'552} of1996onthefi1eoft1-reVllAssistantJudge,CityCivilCourt' Hyderabad^{u'asnot correct The presentsuit was filed only to harass} the defendant^{No.1 to knock away the suit schedule propertyin} collusion with^{each other by the plaintiffand defendant Nos'2 to 5 and} prayed to reject the^{claim oldefendant Nos'2 to 5'}

¶102

¶103

DT.CRR,J CCCA No.j79 of 20t 8

¶104

¶105

Basing on the said pleadings, the trial curt framed the issues

¶106

as follows:

¶107

1 Whether the plaintiff has any right over the suit property in view of the gift deed executed bv the father of the plaintill in lavour of Jamia Nizamia dated 07. I 1 . 1 998 in respect of the suit property?

¶108

2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession of the suit schedule propefty and whlther the plaintiff is entitled for any damiges from the defendant? If so, at what rate?

¶109

To what reliefl

¶110

An additional issue was framed on 09.07.2010 as:

¶111

Whether delendants 2 and 3 are entitled lor 2/9,h share" defendants 4 an 5 are enritled for ll9,h share in the suit schedule property as pleaded in their written statement and counter claim?

¶112

1 0. During the course of trial, the plaintiff examined herself as

¶113

PW.1 and got marked Exs.Al to A20. The defendant No.l was

¶114

examined as DW.l and got examined a witness to the oral gift as DW.2 and got marked Exs.Bl to B14 on his behalf. Defendant No.4 was examined as DW.3 and Exs.Bl5 to B31 were marked through DW.3.

¶115

The trial court, on considering the oral and documentary

¶116

evidence on record, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff with costs

¶117

¶118

DT.GRR'J CCCA No'379^of2018

¶119

and also^{dis-believedthe claim of defendantNo'1' but allowedthe} counter claim^{ol defendant Nos.2to 5 by passing a pleliminaly decree} of partition^{dire,:ting the suit schedulepropefiy to be divided intonine} equai shares^{and allotting tr"o such shares to each of the three sons} and one such^{share eachto the ptaintiff and defendantNos'4and 5'}

¶120

Aggrieved^{by the said judgment and decreedated} 15.02.2018^{in O.S' No.31 1 ot'2007passedby the lX AdditionalChief} Judge, City^{Ciri1 Court, Hyclerabadin dismissing the suit filed by her'} the plaintiff^{prt:t-ertedthis appeal contending that the lower couft had} not considered^{her evidencecxaminedas PW'1while dismissingthe} suit. The^{lower court farled to see the merits of the case andthe} balance of^{convenienceancl did not follow the evidence adduced by} the defendants^{in the suit -fhe tlial courtfailed to answer the issues} framed by it.^{fhe gift deed cxecuted by the father of the plaintifT in} her favour^{was valid and subsisting.The subsequent document/gift} executed^{in f'avour of Jamia Nizamia was nonest in the eye of lawas} the same^{was neveractedullon till date' The observation of the trial} court that the^{l;cheduleproperty had to be divided into nine shareswas} not tenable in the^{eye of law, as the father, dur:inghis lifetime}

¶121

¶122

DT.GRR,J CCCA No.379 of 201,8

¶123

pronounced the gift and confirmed the said gift in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants were liable to be evicted from the schedule property and the plaintiffneeded to be given the vacant and peaceful possession of the schedule property. The possession of the defendant No. 1 was illegal. The plaintiff was also entitled for mesne profits and prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 15.02.2018 passed in O.S. No.311 of 200:- on the file of IX Additional Chief Judge, Ciry Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶124

Heard the appellant-party in person and Sri Maniklal Yadav, learned counsel for respondents-defendant Nos.2 to 5. There is no representation by the learned counsel for respondent-defendant No.1. The appellantplaintiff filed written arguments.

¶125

The appellant, as party in person, contended that the respondent Nos.1 to 5 were brothers and sisters and all of them got married before 1993 itself and were living separately. She being the youngest daughter, used to take care ofher parents and out of love and affection, her father registered a will deed and being aware of the ill intentions of other children, he decided to gift the same in his lifetime through oral gift deed. The intention of her father was clear from the

¶126

¶127

DnGRR'J CCCA No.379^of20l8

¶128

documents^{that he wanredthe said propefty to be enjoyed by the} appellant only^{and he was cotr.tpetentto do so, as the property was his} self acquired^{ploperty.Her iather clearly mentioned in the gift deed} dated22.l2.lg9'7^{maked as Ex A2 that his sonswere disobedientand} as such^{giftedthe propefty to the appellant-plaintiff' The propertywas} alsomutatedinthenameoftheappellantinthelecordsofElectricity andWaterBoa'-dandthebillsweremarkedasExsA8,AlT'A18and A19 and the s;rme^{were never challenged by the respondents'The} respondents^{haC physicallyand mentally tortured the appellant'The} appellant was^{a divorceeand l'rad no.one to suppoft her and hence' the} property shoul,l be^{enjoyedb,v the appellant only The father of the} appellant canct:l1ed^{the gitt deed dated 17'11'1998in written in favour} of Jamia NizzLmia^{and had stated in the cancellation deed dated} i5.01.1999^{rnarked as Ex.A12 that the sonshad colludedwith Jamia} NizamiaandJirmiaNizamiahadfailedtofulfllthetermsor-rwhichthe gift deed was tnade^{and heuce, tlte samewas cancelledThe father of} the appellant^{had stated in the document that from the date of} cancellatioll,^{the appellant atonc should be benefited froni his property} and no other cnildren^{were entitled for any shale, right, title or interest} over the said tr,roperty.^{The cancellationof the will of the appellantby}

¶129

¶130

DT,GRR,J CCCA No.379 of20t8

¶131

cancellation of Will Deed dated lT.ll.lggg marked as Ex.B2g was forged. [t was a false document. There were no reasons assigned for such alleged cancellation. Her father in the cancellation gift deed in 1999 assigned the reasons for such cancellation in detail, which would show the fraud played by the respondents to unlawfully cancer the will deed in favour of the appellant. The signatures of her father did not match with the cancellation deed proving it to be a forged document and on the same day another gift deed was registered. The respondent No.1 filed a suit for partition in 1996 vide O.S. No.552 of 1996 on the file of VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court Hyderabad. The same was dismissed on 03.02.1998. There was no acceptance of any compromise by any of the parties and prayed to declare her as absolute owner of the subject property by allowing the appeal.

¶132

The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 5 on the other hand contended that the respondent Nos.2 to 5 had set up a counter claim for partition which was allowed by the trial court. No appeal was preferred by the appellant against the counter claim. The appellant preferred appeal only against dismissal of the suit filed by her for recovery ofpossession, damages and perpetual injunction. As

¶133

i,l

¶134

Dr.GRR,l CCCA No.379^of20l8

¶135

such, the^{paftiti,)nattained finality' The appellant had set up contrary} claims basing^{on a registeredrvill deed dated 08'11 1993'whichwas} cancelled subsequently^{vide Ex'B28' She had also set up a case of} oral Hiba^{whicll was subsequentlynotarized' But no rvitnesseswere} examined^{in proofof oral Hiba. The father, subsequently legisteringa} gift deed in^{favourof JamiaNizamia on 17'11'1998'would show that} the said docum,:nts^{filed by the appellant wele not va1id.The appellant} herself was onc^{of the attesting witnesses to the registeled gift deed in} tavour of Jamiii^{Nizamialnstitution'As per the requirementof a valid} gift, the possession^{wouldncecl to be deliveredimmediatelyBut no} possession^{was delivered to .TarniaNizamia Institution'As such'they} hled a suit^{before the Rent Controiler, but the said matter was} withdrawn by^{the Jarnia Nizamiasocietysubsequently' Though the} defendant No.^{filed a suit for perpetualinjunctionagainst the plaintiff} and another^{personvide O.S No'552 of 1996'tlie samewas also} withdrawn by^{him.Though a compromise was enteredby the plaintiff} and the defenclant^{Nos.1, 3. 7 (rvho were thirdparliestherein)' but the} same was^{not recorded b1' the Cour-t The defendantNo'l (the} plaintiff therein)^{had wjthclrawnthe said suitThe claim of the} plaintiff that her lather^{gilieclthe said property by way of oral Hiba}

¶136

¶137

DT.GRR,J CCCA No.379 ol20tt

¶138

could not be believed as the originar title deed of the document was with the mortgagee. There was no signature of the appellant_plaintiff on Ex.A2 in proof of acceptance of orat Hiba. No mutation proceedings were flrled. As the father died intestate, the property had to be divided as per Muslim Law and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶139

Now the points for consideration in this appeal are:

¶140

I . Whether the appellant_plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by her for recovery ofpossession, damages and perpetual injunction against defendant No. I ?

¶141

Whether the judgment of the trial court in dismissing the suit filed by the appellant_plaintiff is sustainable?

¶142

POINTNo.I

¶143

As seen from the pleadings and evidence on record, the relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The plaintiff was the younger sister of defendant Nos.l to 3 and defendants Nos.4 and 5. The plaintiff contends about a registered will deed datecl 08.11.1993 and two notarized Gift deeds dated 25.11.1997 and 24.12.1997 in her favour executed by her father. The defendant No.1 contended about a Gift deed executed by their father in favour of Jamia Nizamia on 17.11.1998 and a oral gift in his favour by their

¶144

¶145

DLGRR'J CCCA No.379^oI20l8

¶146

father in the^{year' 1982. The pleadingsofboththesepafiies would not} depict the^{true facts. Theer"rdenceaffidavitof DW'3explainsthe} history of^{the ;aseand the circumstancesbehind executing all the} above documents^{by their fathel'As per her affidavit' their father} Mohd. Abdul^{Sattarwhile rvorkingin policedepartment as a Police} Constable,^{purr:hased an open plot of landadmeasuring566 sq'yds'} situated at^{YesrabNagar, Yakuthpura, Hyderabad,under registered} sale deed^{docunent No.349o1-1961dared2l'02'1961in the office of} the Sub-Registrar,^{Azampura' l{yderabadand constructeda house by} obtaining^{hour;ingloan fiom A'P' Co-operative DepartmentLast} Grade Err.rplol^{ees Flousing Society, Hyderabad for construction of} house. A^{loan of Rs.8,000"-was sanctioned'As a securityfor} repayment of^{.he loan.he morlgagedthe said plot of land with A P'} Co-operative^{Deparlr.nentLast Grade Employees HousingSociety} Lirnited by^{executinga registered documentbearing No'753of 1970} on 12.03.197(r.^{After conpletionof construction,he along with his} family consisting^{of threesons and three daughtersresided in the said} house. The^{t:lder son M.A} 'labbar^{(defendant No'2)got job in the} office of the^{Director Genel.al of Police, Lakdikapool,Hyderabadin} the year 1970.^{The defendant No'l Mohd Abdul Gaffar was the}

¶147

¶148

DnGRR,J CCCA No.379 of 2018

¶149

second son and was doing business as a vegetable vendor, having shop at Meeralam Mandi. The defendant No.3 Mohd. Ishaaq was the youngest son and he also got a government job in Irrigation Department in the year 1978. The defendant No.a @W.3) was the elder daughter of Mohd. Abdul Sattar. She was working as a Government Teacher. Her marriage was performed in the year 1965. The defendant No.5 was the second daughter, who was working as a Pharmacist in ESI and her marriage was performed on 22.02.19g2. The plaintiff was the youngest daughter, who was a Unani Doctor. studied BUMS.

¶150

Mohd. Abdul Sattar retired frorn service in the year 19g4. The plaintiff was unmarried by that time. worrying about the future of the plaintiff, Mohd. Abdul sattar executed a registered will deed dated 08'11.1993 bearing document No.88 of 1993 in the office ofthe Sub-Registrar, Azampura, Hyderabad in favour of the plaintiff bequeathing the suit schedule property making it clear that the wilr would come into operation only after his death by reserving his right o cancel the said will and to execute any other document. After execution and registration of the will, the marriage of the plaintiff was

¶151

¶152

DT.CRR,J CCCA No.379^of2018

¶153

fixed and the^{same was perlirrmedwith Mohd'Siddique Ismailat} Ishrath Mahal.^{.r4oghalpura,Flvclerabadon 10'1'1994' At the time of} marriage,^{as per the affidavit olDW'3, both the defendantNo'land} the plaintiff blackmailed^{their father' The defendanlNo'1 tlrreatened} to create^{probl'lms duringmarriagefunctionof the plaintiff if their} father did not^{()ancelthe will executedin favour of the plaintiff and} insistedhimtccancelthervilldeedandtheplaintiffthreatenedto ieave the marriage^{function u'ithout maryingMohd'Siddique Ismail} if her father at the^{instance ol defendant No' 1 cancelled the will deed} so executed^{in hel favour. Unable to bear such mental torture'their} father left the^{liouseon the date of maniagefunction of the plaintiff} without inlorming^{anyone. 'l'hus, thoughhe madeall arrangements for} the performan,re^{of the marriageof the plaintiff' did not attend and} pafticipate in the^{rnarriagetur.rctionof the plaintiff As such' her} brothers stepped^{into the shoes of their father by takingthe} responsibility^{and perfbrmeclthe marriage of the plaintiff with the} cooperatiort^{ol al1 otherfarnill'members'}

¶154

D\V.3 furlher^{contended that the defendant No'1 developed} an evil eye over^{the house property and approachedthe Municipal}

¶155

¶156

DT.CRR,J CCCA No.379 of 2018

¶157

corporation of Hyderabad soon after the marriage of the plaintiff in the year 1995 and created a document purporting to be a Memorandum of Gift (Ex.Bl) said to have been executed by their father in his favour, orally gifting the suit schedule property to him on 22.02.1982, which happened to be the date of marriage of defendant No.5, by making false and fraudulent representations behind their back, without any notice to their father and succeeded in mutating his name by deleting the name of their father in respect of the scheduled house property. Immediately thereafter, on getting krowledge of such mutation of the name of defendant No.1 in the records of MCH, their father lodged a complaint dispirting and denfng the factum of execution of any such memorandum of gift Ex.B I in favour of defendant No.1 or making oral Hiba in favour of defendant No.1 on 22.02.1982 or on any other date and made representations before the Municipal authorities for cancellation and deletion of the name of defendant No.1 and finally succeeded. The name of their father had been reincorporated in the records of MCH and their father paid the property tax in his name vide receipts No.24g4, dated 04.07.1995 and their father continued to exercise the ownership rights and to enjoy the actual and physical possession of the suit schedule property.

¶158

¶159

Dr'GRR,J CCCA No.j79^{of 20lE}

¶160

It rvas^{furthersubmittedthat their mother died on} 06.12.1995'ThedefendantNo,leventhoughadmittedhisguiltand tendered uncon(litional^{apolog)'totheir father in forging the signature} of their father^{on the alleged rnemorandum of gift (Ex.Bl),within} three months o^{deathof theirlnotherJahangirBee' filed a suit O'S'} No.552 of^{199(ion the fi1e of the VII JuniorCivil Judge, City Civil} Courl, Hyclelabad^{for perpetualinjunction against the plaintiffand one} Ahmeduddin on^{12.02.1996 allegingthat the plaintiff and the said} Ahmeduddin^{viere interfering with his allegedpeaceful possession} over the suit^{scredulepropefiy,althoughtheirfatherand the defendant} No.3 with his^{familywere in actual and physical possessionof the suit} schedule^{propeftyand three sisterswere staying in the housesof their} in iaws. She^{<:ontendedthat the ideabehinddefendantNo'1 filinga} suit against^{tht: plaintiffand au unconcernedthird party was with an} apprehension^{that the plaintilf basingon the will executedby their} father in her^{lavour mightcreate problemsfor him in future in the} enjoyment ofthe^{suit schedulepropedy' She contended that on getting} knowledge of^{filingof the said suit, their father lodged a complaint} against defendant^{No.1befole the poiice authorities and since he was} a retired emp,loyee of^{the policedepartment,the police officials}

¶161

¶162

DT.GRR,J CCCA No.379 of20t E

¶163

mediated for amicable settlement among all the family members and had not registered any case against defendant No.l for forging the signatures of their father on Ex.B1 Memorandum of Gift. In view of the said settlement, defendant No.1 agreed to withdraw the suit in o.S. No.552 of 1996 admitting the absolute ownership of their father over the suit schedule property and on 25.03.1996, the defendant No.1 filed a sworn affidavit stating that he would withdraw the suit in O.S. No.552 of 1996 and would abide by the division of suit schedule property as would be made by their father.

¶164

The said swom affidavit was confronted to defendant No'1 during the course of his cross-examination and the defendant No.1 admitted the same and the same was marked as Ex.B17.

¶165

DW.3 further stated that the understanding among the family members was to the effect that their father should cancel the registered will deed dated 08.11.1993 bearing document No.gg of 1993 executed in favour of the plaintiff and a plan of the suit schedule propefty was prepared showing the division of suit schedule property into three equal size portions as A, B and C to be allotted to the.three sons and the three sisters would be paid Rs.30,000/- each in lieu of

¶166

¶167

DLGRR'J CCCA No.379^{of 2018}

¶168

theirshareinthesuitscheduieproperty.AMemorandumof Compromise^{to that effect was prepared, signedby theirfather and all} the three sisters^{and brothers on 02 04'1996 for filing and recording in} O.S .No.552 o'1996^{on the file of the VII Junior Civil Judge' City} Civii Court,^{lllderabad, with a further understandingof impleadingof} other brothers^{and sisters as pafiiesto the said suit' However'the} defendant No.1^{had sirnplv urrhdrawnthe suit in O'S' No 552 of 1996} without recorc ing^{the terms of the Memorandum of Compromise} under Ex.A14,ludgment^{dated 03.02 1998'}

¶169

She further^{statecl that as per the understanding amongall} the family^{members, their tatliercancelledthe registered will deed} dated 08.11^{.1993in l'avour of the plaintiffand the deed of cancellation} of will was^{re'3istered as documentNo'101 of 1998 on l7'11'1998 in} Book 3 in the^{,lffice of the Sub-Registrar,Azampura'Hyderabad'}

¶170

She fufiher^{submitted that though their father assured} distributing^{the suit scheduleproperlies among the three brothersby} paying Rs.30,r100/-^{each to hrs three daughters,but underthe influence} and at the behest^{and instance of somevested interestappearedto} have executel the^{registelecl gift deed dated 17 11'1998bearing}

¶171

¶172

DT,CRR,J CCCA No.379 of20t 8

¶173

document No.236l of 1998 in Book 1 in the office of the Sub_ Registrar of Azampura, Hyderabad, gifting the suit schedule propefty in favour of M/s.Jamia Nizamia. . The plaintiff herself purchased the stamp papers for executing the gift deed in favour of M/s. Jamia Nizamia and also acted as one of the witnesses to the said registered gift deed. She further contended that the gift deed so executed in favour of M/s. Jamia Nizamia was not valid under raw as it was not acted upon by the parties to the document and the suit schedule property continued to be in the possession of family members even after the death of their father. Their father died intestate on 05.09.2000 leaving behind them as his legal heirs.

¶174

DW.3 further stated that the husband of the plaintiff divorced the plaintiff on 23.03.1999 and thereafter the plaintiff shifted to suit schedule property and started residing in the suit schedule property. AzI/s. Jamia Nizamia filed eviction proceedings vide R.C. No.449 of 2000 on the flle of III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad making the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 3 as parties. But, said lWs.Jamia Nizamai failed to prove the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between them and the plaintiff and defendant

¶175

¶176

DT.GRR'J CCC+ No.379^{oJ 2018}

¶177

Nos.1 and 3.^{iJltimately,R CI' No'449of 2000 wasdismissedon} 27.08.2002.^{The plaintiff filed the presentsuit againstthe defendant} No.1 alleging^{that theil lather orally giftedthe suit schedule property} to her on^{22.12.1991 and the same was reduced into writingon} 24.12.1997

¶178

This affidavit^{ol' defendantNo'4 filed as DW 3 would} disclose the^{chronology of the caseand the sequence of events'}

¶179

21 . The^{plaintilf baseclher claim on a will deed markedas} Ex.A1 executerl^{by her tather on 08'1 1'1993' But as the attestorof the} will i.e. Mohd.,\bdul^{Sattarrvasat liberty to revoke the will during his} lifetime and^{cancelle<l the saLne under Ex'B28 registered document'} the trial court^{obsen'cdthat thc claim of the plaintiffwith regardto the} suit schedule l)ropefi)r^{basing on the will deed malked under Ex'A1} was not valid

¶180

'With^{regard to the claim of the plaintiff' basingon the} notarized^{metnorandumof gift deed dated24'12'1997marked as} Ex.A2, the trirLl^{court obsen'ed that the plaintiffpleaded aboutthe oral} gift deed daterl 25.1^{1.1997bLrtno such evidenceas to the oral gift has}

¶181

¶182

DT.GRR,J CCCA No.379 oJ20I8

¶183

been produced by the plaintiffbefore the couft. The plaintiffhad not chosen to examine any of the witnesses to Ex.A2 even though it was shown to have been executed in the presence of Mohd.Abdur Raheem and Mohd. Khadeer. The stamp papers for engrossing the oral Hiba into writing marked under Ex.A2 were not purchased by Mohd.Abdul Sattar. The Memorandum of Gift Deed did not contain any recitals referring to the previous oral Hiba as contended by the plaintiff. The gift deed Ex.A2 was not containing the signature of pW.1 as donee. As such, the trial court observed that no reliance could be placed on Ex.A2 and the testimony of the plaintiff appeared to be self serving. The trial court also observed that no evidence had been placed by the plaintiffto show that the suit schedure property stood in her name in pursuance of Ex.A2 and that she had been in exclusive possession of the suit schedule property fiom the date of the alleged oral Hiba or Ex.A2.

¶184

The trial court also observed that the original title deeds of the suit schedule property were with A.p. Cooperative Department Last Grade Housing Co-operative Society. As such, the plea of oral gift set up by the plaintiff as well as the defendant No.l were

¶185

¶186

DT.GRR,J CCC4 No.379^of20l8

¶187

concocted stories^{invented to deplive the rights of other famiiy} members.^{The trial court also observedthat therewere no pleadings} or evidence^{to show that Mohd Abdul Sattarhad delivered the actual} physical possession^{of the suit schedulepropeftyeitherto the plaintiff} or det-endant^{Nrr.l. If at a1l an)' such oral gift was made in favourof} defendant No.1^{in 1982, the releasedeed under Ex826 wouid not} have been executed^{in favour of Mohd' AbdulSattar and it would} have been in^{favoulof either the piaintiff or defendantNo' 1' Exs'B19} and B20, bunch^{ofelectdcit)'billsand receipts,subsequentto the date} of alleged ora^{Hiba, were standing in the nameof Mohd' Abdul} Sattar.Thesadcircun-rstanccsalsowouldshowtlratrreitlrertheoral Hiba r.ror an1'^{writterl gift tleeds were acted upon' The trial coutl} fufther observe:d^{that the plcintiff filed the suit admrtting the oral and} physical possession^{of del'endantNo' 1 over the suit scheduleproperty'} The possession of^{one ol the co-ownersshall be cor.rsideredas} constructive^{possessiottof ali the other co-owners'In case if the} person in actual^{and physical possession clairnedadverse possession} against the^{otLer co-owners. then the buldenwas upon such person to} establish that he/she^{was in possessionof the suit schedulepropertyin} adverse to the interest^{of otbeldefendants'}

¶188

¶189

DT.GRR,J CCCA No.379 of 20tE

¶190

With regard to the gifr deed executed by Mohd.Abdul Sattar in favour of Jamia Nizami a on 17 .11 . 199g, the trial courl observed that the same also appeared to be a fabricated document brought into existence only to mislead the Rent Control Case proceedings because the gift deed marked under Ex.B29 was also silent as to the delivery of the property to Jamia Nizamia. If Ex.B29 dated 17.11.1993 was in existence, the donee would have taken the physical possession of the suit schedule propedy as weil as the title deeds relating to the suit schedule property from the donor Mohd.Abdul Sattar long back. The trial court further observed that according to the plaintiff, the alleged gift deed under Ex.B29 was cancelled by her father Mohd.Abdul Sattar vide 'cancellation of gift deed'under Ex.A12. Therefore, it could be inferred that even the said document was not acted upon. The registered gift deed Ex.B29 could not be cancelled unilaterally by virtue of a notarized document and no value could be attached to Ex.A12. But, however opined that Ex.B29 was also a fabricated document brought up by the plaintiff, as the plaintiff signed as an attesting witness in Ex.B29 and when she was confronted with the same during her cross-examination, she evaded by saying that she did not remember whether she had attested as an

¶191

¶192

DnGRR,J CCCA No.379^{of 2018}

¶193

attesting witnesr;^{to the registeLed deed made by her fatherin favour of} Jamia Nizamia.^{From the testimony of the plaintiff' the trial court} observed that^{b'lth Exs B29 and A12 werebrought up documentsand} the plaintiff^{filt:d a suit by suppressing the real facts The trial court} further observed^{that if the said documentwas really intended to be} acted, either^{the plaintilf or clefendantNo'1, whowerebeneficiaries} under oral^{gift'vou1dhave filedsuit for cancellationofEx B29'}

¶194

W th regard^{to the contentionofdefendantNo'1 about the} execution of^{g,ift deecl by his father in his favour, the trial coutt} observed that^{,he said document would not reveal about the earlier} oral Hiba and^{the names of tl're persons in whose presence such oral} giftwasmadeon22.o2.lgiJandtherewasnowhisperinhiswritten statement as^{to the specific date, monthand year as to the executionof} the gift and also^{the nameol DW.2 who was exarrinedas a witness to} the oral Hiba.^{The trial couftalsoobservedthat tlie compromise} memo, signecl by^{the defenciantNo.l along with the other family} members was^{not having anv t'eferenceto any of the oral gifts/Hiba as} alleged by tht:^{plaintiff, clefendant No.l as wellas 'lamia Nizamia'} disbelieved thr: documents^{stlledas gift deeds, memotandum of gifts,}

¶195

1()

¶196

Dt.GRR,J CCCA No.379 of20l8

¶197

will deed and cancellation deed as nominal documents which were never intended to be acted upon by late Mohd.Abdul Sattar, the original owner of the suit schedule property.

¶198

This Court also accepts the legal position that Hiba or Gift shall be only to the extent of l3'd of the whole property and if any Hiba or Gift was made by the parents to one of the heirs, it would affect only on acceptance of all other legal heirs and no legal heir could be avoided to give his/her share.

¶199

The trial court also observed that though defendant No.l got marked some documents as water bills, property tax receipts and electricity bills, showing that the suit schedule property was mutated in his name, observed that no mutation proceedings were filed by defendant No.l issued by MCH in his favour and if mutation was effected in the year 1995 itself as claimed by defendant No.l then there was no necessity for him to file his own declaration affidavit under Ex.B17 in 1996 stating that he had no objection for distribution of suit schedule property among all his brothers and sisters as per the wish and will of their father Mohd.Abdul Sattar. The trial court also observed that the electricity bills dated 05.05.2008, 14.09.2010 and

¶200

¶201

Dr.GRR,l CCCA No-379 of²⁰¹⁸

¶202

04.01.2013 and^{the propefiy tax receiptdated 04'07'1995 markedas} Ex.B22 were strnding^{in the name of Mohd. Abdul Sattar subsequent} to Exs.B2 and I]3, as^{such, disbelieved the case ofthe plaintiffandthe} case of the delendant^{No. I .}

¶203

Th s Courl does^{not flnd any improprietyor illegalityin} the observationi of^{the trial coutt in disbelievingthe case set up by the} plaintiff and defendant No.1^{ri'ith regard to their title to the property'} As such, this^{(.lourtcotnple:e1v agrees with the observations of the} trial court on these asPects.

¶204

Tht: trial court also^{observed that delivery ofpossessionis} an important aspect in^{implenrentingthe gift or Hiba. As the donor} had not vacaterl the^{properly ar.rdcontinuedto live in the said property} till his death a:.rd all the^{other familymemberswere also residingin} the said propefty,^{infereclthat the plaintifffailed to establishher} clairn for reco!ery of^{possessior.rbasing on the alleged title under Hiba} or Wili or basing on^{het previous possession.}

¶205

¶206

DT,GRR,J CCCA No.379 of2a t8

¶207

As no appeal was preferred by the plaintiff against allowing the counter claim filed by the clefendants Nos.2 to 5 seeking for partition, the said observations were not disturbed in this appeal.

¶208

In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree dated 15.02.20i8 passed in O.S No.31l of 2007 on the fiie of IX Additional Chief Judge. Ciry Civil Courr, Hyderabad in dismissing the suit frled by the plaintiff, as the same is sustainable and was in accordance with facts and law on the subject. No order as to)costs.

¶209

Miscellaneous Applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶210

Sd/. K. SRINIVASA R o JOINT REGIST AR i ,tnue copv/l SECTION FICER

To,

The lX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. (with records)

¶215

Mrs. Khairunnisa; D/o. Late Mohd. Abdul Sattar, R/o. H.No. 17-3-19818, Yesrub Nagar, Yakutpura, Hyderabad, Party in Person [OPUC]

¶216

One CC to SRl. Sri MANIKLAL YADAV, Advocate [OPUC]

¶217

One CC to SRl. SYEDA BATOOL, Advocate IOPUC]

¶218

Two CD Copies

DUASR

HIGH COURT

GRR,J

DATED:05/0 6/2t) 23

i iI

JUDGMENT CCCA.No.379 o' 2018

¶225

1rl E Sirri 7a
t
t
3 ) ?2 t\Jt ul .hL)
,+
t a'fsprt,a j a
.-.

¶226

DISMISSING THI, APPEAL

o
12

|³²¹⁵¹

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD rll!

¶231

MONDAY THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE I PRESENT I I l! .l

¶232

¶233

THE HONOURABLE DR, JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI I tJ Between: CITY CIVILii COURT PEAL O:37 oF2 18 Mrs. Khairunnisa. D/.{ Late Mohd .Abdul^{Sattar, Aged about} 50 vears. Occ:Doctor, Rl/o.' H.NO. 17-3-198t8, Yesrub Nagar,_yakutpura, Hyderabad. i^.i ...APPELLANT/PLANTIFF

¶234

Between:

¶235

AND

¶236

Md..Abdul_Gaffar, SA Ute n/lond.Abdut Sattar, Aged about 58 years, Occ: Business, Rl/o. H.No: 1 7_3_1 98/8, yesruO-t fid., iakutpura, Hyijerabad.

¶237

Mohd. Abdul Jabbarl,. S/o. Late Mohd. Abdut Sattar, Aged about 62 years, occ:Govt. Emotovee,'H.No^-ii_s-i dira, VEJiui i:;srr., yakutpura, Hyderabad.^'t t

¶238

, yil ;"*."t9,'1"t",ygng. Abdut satrar. Ased abour 57 years, occ: Govt. Emptoyee, Rl/o. H.No. rz_s_rs8/q Ve-siu6 *"dr'i V"iriprri, Evi"iJoio]",.

¶239

4 BqrS"ggnlilg, vt{gf Y 4,Eaheem, Ased about 60 years, occ: Teacher, Rr/o. H. No. 1 B-B-451^_4_491 Jyorhi sagn, kri,irwajic66iv,-e,ji^-eilr;, Hft;lrb:;.

¶240

Rahmath Ui ni", A"!rr, Wo. Moin Akhtar, Aged about 56 years, Occ: Govt. Em ptoyee, R/o. Eids-ayati, Vriripr;; C;ffi y,'Hiieraoao Ir

¶241

(p9rg$g1p 3 to s adaetlamended as per Orders in tA No. 1863/2009 ...oeFCr.roAruisTnetFbNoer.rrs dt.8-'12-200e) I f lr Appeal under Section 96 of C.p_C against the Judgment and Decree Dated 1542-20te, madl i,f o.s. r'ro. 311 0F 20070n the fire of the cou( of the rX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶242

This petition coming on for hearing upon perusing the memorandum of grounds of criminar petition'and upon hearing the argument of pARTy rN pERSoN, Counsel for the Appellant, Sri SyEDA BATOOL, Counsel for the Respondent No.1 and Sri MANIKLAL YADAV Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to s

¶243

I t:

¶244

¶245

This Court Doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶246

That the apteal be and hereby is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree date(l 15-02-2018 passed in o.S. No. 311 ol 2ooz on the fire of the rX Additional chief Judge, city civir court, Hyderabad in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintff, as the same is sustainabre and was in accordance.with facts and law on the subject; and

¶247

That there slall be no order as to cost in this appeal;

¶248

To,

¶249

Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOrNr REGTSTFAR ./ //TRUE COPY// g'/ sEcTtoN drrtcen

¶250

The lX Additional Ch ef Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad

¶251

Two CD Copies^r.

i t I

i I I I i

HIGH COURT

GRR,J

DATED:05/06/2023 t i t i i iI I I I ! tI I{ It i i I I I I l ! i I I CCCA.No.379 DECREE ot 2018 ot 2018 2018 |. : :', .'' :i ItitIIttt3,t iiitI} ii

¶258

CCCA.No.379 DECREE ot 2018 ot 2018 2018 |.

¶259

DISMISSING THE APPEAL

¶260

€;
{<br>1 1,
t<br>

Khairunnisa v. Md. Abdul Gaffar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khairunnisa v. Md. Abdul Gaffar

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

A Praveen Reddy Vs Mr. D. ragulu

Smt. M.Sreedevi, Vs Sri. M.Krishna Kumar

Smt. M.Sreedevi, Vs J.Yadagiri

T Saraswathi, Nalgonda Dist Vs Sama Pruthviraj, Hyderabad and 2 Others

Kanthilal Chandulal Khati, Hyd Vs C. Vittal Rao, Hyd

Chintala Madhavi Vs S. Venkatamma, / Venkata Lakshmi