Dismissed

Syed Ansar Ahmed and 3 others v. Smt. Shaheen Siddiqa and 7 others

Telangana HC23 Jan 2024CRP/669/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Half bench dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging a trial court order rejecting a partition suit at the filing stage. The High Court upheld the lower court's decision, holding that the dispute over alleged oral partition requires a full trial and cannot be decided summarily based solely on inheritance principles.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed; order of the lower court confirming rejection of suit is upheld.

Syed Ansar Ahmed and 3 others Vs Smt. Shaheen Siddiqa and 7 others — Partition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

I l

¶2

i Ii

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA . ATHYDERABAD

¶4

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 669 OF 2023

¶8

Petitiofl Under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the Order dated 09-12-2022 made in 1.A.No.1032 ot 2022 in O.S.No.2S ot 2022 on the file o[ the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, at Zaheerabad. Between:

¶9

¶10

Syed Ansar Ahmed, S/o. late Syed Zahoor Ahmed, Aged about 61 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.M.19-3-29418, Falima Nagar, Falaknuma, Hyderabad.

¶11

Syeda Kausar Begum, W/o. late Mohamed Sirajuddin, D/o. late Syed Zahoor Ahmed, aged about 61 years, Occ: Hosuehold, Ri/o. H.No. 17-3-105, Ayesha Manzil, Yakutpura, Hyderabad-s00 023.

¶12

Syeda Haji Begum, Wo. Syed Ghousuddin, D/o. late Syed Zahoor Ahmed, aged about 46 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No. 19-3-29418, Fatima Nagar, Falaknuma, Hyderabad.

¶13

Sabera Begum, Wo. late Syed Zahoor Ahmed, Aged about 78 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No. 19-3-294131B, Fatima Nagar, Falaknuma, Hyderabad.

¶14

...Petitioners/Defendants/Revision Petitioner

¶15

AND

¶16

1 . Smt. Shaheen Siddiqa, W/o. late Syed Nisar Ahmed, Aged about 46 years, Occ: Govt. Servant, Rl/o. H.No. 18-E-22311412, Riyasath Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶17

Syed Zahoor Ahmed, S/o. late Syed Nisar Ahmed, Aged about 22 years, Occ: Stud€nt, Rl/o. H.No. 18-8-22311412, Riyasath Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶18

3 Syed Nabeed Ahmed, S/o. late Syed Nisar Ahmed, Aged about 21 years, Occ: Student, Rl/o. H.No. 184-22311412, Riyasath Nagar. Hyderabad.

¶19

4 Syedq lshrath Begum, D/o. late Syed Nisar Ahmed, Aged about'19 years, Occ: Student, R/o. H.No. 184-22311412, Riyasath Nagar, Hyderabail.

¶20

¶21

Syeda Rubeena Begum, Wo. late Syed Noor Ahmed, Aged about 35 years, Occ: HousehoH, R/o. H.No. 17-3-128, Rayen Bazar, Yakutpura, Hydeiabad500 023

¶22

Syed Naqi Ahmed, S/o. late Syed Noor Ahmed, A,Sed about 17 years, Occ: Student, Minor under the guardianship of natural mother Smt. Syeda Rubeena Begum, vwo. late Syed Nmr Ahmed, Rl/o. H.No. '17-3-128, Rayen Bazar, Yakutpura, Hyderabad-500 023

I { I !

t I Ij I

t I

7 9yed^{Nadeem Ahmed, S/o. late Syed Noor Ahmed, Aged} about 14 yearc, Occ: Student, Minor under the guardianship of natural mother, Smt. Syeda Rubeena gggyln, w/g:^tate syed Noor Ahmed, Ryo. H.No. 17_3_128, Rayen Bazar, Yakutpura, Hyderabad-500 023

¶31

Syeda^ Mahereen Begum, D/o. late Syed Noor Ahmed, Aged about 14 years, Occ: Student. Minor und_er the guardianship of natural mother Smt. Syeda Rubeena Begum, Vl//o. late Syed Noor Ahmed; Ryo. H.No. 1Z_3_128, nryirn aa.ar, Vatutpl"ra, ' Hyderabad-500 023

¶32

¶33

... Respondents/Plai ntiffs/Respondents

¶34

lA NO: I oF 2023

¶35

Petition under Section 151 CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, thJ Higtr court may be preased to stay of all further proceedings in o.s.No.2s ot 2o2i on the fite or ti,e Honouraoi6 Junior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad.

¶36

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. HABEEB JAFFAR BIN HASAN

¶37

Counsel for the Respondents: None Appeared

¶38

The Court made the following: ORDER

,e ry T

j r

THE HONOURABLE SMT. WSTICE^{K. SUJANA} CT\IIL REVISION PETITION No.669 of 2023

¶44

ORDER

¶45

Aggrieved by the order dated 09.12.2022 in^I.A.No.1032 of 2022 in O.S.No.25 of 2022^passed by the Court^{of learned} Junior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad, the^{presentCivil Revlsion} Petition is filed.

¶46

I.A.No.1O32 of 2022 is filed under Order VII Rule^{1I (a} & d) read with Section 151 of CPC seeking^{to reject O.S.No.25} of 2022 on the ground that there is no cause of action.^The petitioners herein are the defendants in the main^suit. O.S.No.2S of 2O22 filed by the respondents herein^seeking partition and separate possession of immovable^propertyand this suit is coming for filing written statement.^{Originallythe} suit schedule property is owned and.^{possessed by Syed} Mastan Sab, S/o Peeran Sab, who was the owner^{of an} agricultural land bearing Sy.No.313/A,^{admeasuring Ac. 33-} O6 gunts, and Sy.No.313/AA,^{admeasuring Ac. 1.35 guntas,} total admeasuring Ac.35.01^{guntas, situated at Kaveli Village,} Koheer Mandal, Sangareddy District. Syed^{mastan Sab,} during his life time neither made any^{conveyancedeed nor}

.tKs"J C.R P.No.669 of2023

¶52

traasferred the above said property to any of his sons arrd he died in the year 1994. During Syed Mastaa Sab,s life time, one of his son by name Syed Za_hoor Ahmed also died in the year 1972. As per muslim law, the son who dies prior to the death of his father will not have any share. The plaintiffs are the wife, son and daughters of Late. Syed Zahoor Ahmed, thus they .rre not entitled to claim partition in the matruka property of Syed Mastan Sab. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled for any property and prayed the Court to reject the surt.

¶53

The respondents herein filed counter opposing the averments made by the petitioner ald submitted that petitioner No. 1 is the elder brother of her husband, who is the son of late Syed Zahoor Ahmed. petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are daughters of late Syed Zahoor Ahmed and Sisters of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No.4 is the wife of late Syed Zahoor Ahmed and mother of Petitioner Nos. I to 3. It is further stated that the property was allotted to the plaintiffs and defendants through oral partition and that the plaintiffs and defendants are co-owners and joint possessors of the same. The further claim of the plaintiffs are that all the plaintiffs and all the

¶54

¶55

¶56

sKs.-/ C.R.P.No.669 of2023

¶57

defendants have got their respective shares in the suit schedule property and for convenience sake the name of defendant No.l, who is the eldest son was mentioned in all the revenue records and he is trying to alienate the suit schedule property to deprive their shares. It is the specific case that plaintiffs and defendants are co-owners and joint possessors of the suit schedule properfy and all of them have their respective shares in the suit schedule property, as such, it cannot be rejected at this stage. After hearing on both sides only, the trial Court rejected the petition as there is no cause of action.

¶58

Heard Sri Habeeb Jaffar Bin Hasan, learned counsel for the petitioners. There is no representation on behalf of the respondents, in spite of service of notice.

¶59

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the deceased children will not get any share from the Matruka property of the grandfather and it is a settled principles of law and the trial Court erred that respondent Nos. I to B will have a share in the property of their grandfather Syed Mastan Sab. l,earned counsel further submitted that the daughter of Syed Mastan has hled partition suit vide O.S.No.1O8 of 20Og on the

¶60

¶61

s('EJ C. R. P. No.669 of 2023

¶62

hle of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad wherein the property is in the name of the petitioner was also asked for partition and the sarne was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, she liied A.S.No.62 of 2Olg on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy on the ground that late Syed Zahoor Ahmed predceased his father Syed Mastan Sab ald the Court below stated that as per Muslim Law Shariat Zahoor Ahmed is not entitled for the Matruka Property of l,egal Heirs of Syed Mastan Sab.

¶63

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and having gone through the material available on record, the only contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that respondents are not entitled any share in the property of Syed Mastan sab as the father of the petitioners/plaintiff therein predeceased of Syed Mastan Sab. Whereas, the contention of the respondents herein is that there was an oral partition during the life time of Syed Mastan Sab, as such, they are entitled for the share, which is decided after full trial of the suit. At this stage, it cannot be rejected only on the ground that they are not having any share in the property. There is no dispute with regard to the

s(s./ C.RP.No.669 of 20zJ

¶68

settled principles of law, that L.Rs of the predeceased son are not entitled for the share in the properfy of grandfather whereas, in this case, they are claiming property basing on the ora-l partition, as such, it cannot be decided at this stage. Therefore, there is no illegality in the order of the trial Court, there are no merits in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶69

7 . Accordingly, this Civil Revision petition is dismissed confirming the order dated 09.12.2022 in LA.No.1032 of 2022 in O.S.No.25 ol 2022 passed by the Court of learned Junior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶70

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶71

i,1
I
NAGABHUSHAMBA
ASSISTANT REGISTRARREGISTRAR
,i
{.-.-
t
sEsloN oFFlcER
t
i
I
.t:I
! l;'t.ir.![.I:l,f
fI
-ii
J

¶72

SD/- P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA ASSISTANT REGISTRARREGISTRAR

¶73

//TRUE COPY//

¶74

ro,

¶75

Ttte Junior Civil Judge, at Zaheerabad

¶76

One CC to Sri. HABEEB JAFFAR BtN HASAN, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies

"o* []rP

.F tlI

HIGH COURT

ffi

DATED:2310112024

ORDER

CRP.No.669 ot²⁰²³

1
,
t:
.T
,:{
i?
ri7
,J
( L/\ i. i r-i t' s 14l (' .J
,+
3 J zz rAir zoz4 +o :.-
* *+i
[SpATCyl €p
I
d
IIi
!

¶87

DISMISSING THE CIVIL^{REVISION PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS.

i,,t

uw$N"

)I(
{
i

--^-ra#Eil.-

Syed Ansar Ahmed and 3 others v. Smt. Shaheen Siddiqa and 7 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Ansar Ahmed and 3 others v. Smt. Shaheen Siddiqa and 7 others

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

Antharam Rukkamma (Died) and another Vs Antharam Narsimlu and 26 others

M. Sudhakar Rao Vs v. Rajeshwar Reddy

Tamanampudi Ashok Kumar Reddy, Y Vs Dr. Bandaluppi Rajendra Srinivas

Kankanala Laxmi Vs Koudagani Purnachander and 12 others

Sri.B.Krishna Vs Sri.Ranga Sudhakar

Smt. Pocharam Ailamma Vs P. Sai Kumar Yadav