Page 1 of 26 (fair)
OS No.84 of 2022
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM –
ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT
VEMULAWADA
PRESENT: SRI AJAY KUMAR JADHAV
Senior Civil Judge,
Vemulawada.
Monday, this the 20 th day of April, 2026
ORIGINAL SUIT No. 84 of 2022
(OLD.No.35 of 2019 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla)
Between: Mohammed Showkath, S/o.late Mohammed Fazil, Age:62 years, Occ: Retired A.S.I., of Police, R/o.H.No.7-3-205, Kashmerigadda (opposite Rythu Bazaar), Karimnagar town and District, Telangana State.
…. Plaintiffs // AND //
1.Mohammed Azmath Pasha, S/o.late Mohammed Fazil, Age:60 years, Occ:Retired Head Constable, R/o.H.No.2-7-683, Mukkarampura Karimnagar town and District.
2.Mohammed Iqbal, S/o. Late Mohammed Fazil, Age:55 years, Occ: Employee in Police Department, R/o.H.No.9-4-446, Opposite: Primary School, Sapthagiri Colony, Karimnagar town and District, Telangana State.
3.Shaheen, W/o. M.A Rawoof (D/o. Late Mohammed Fazil), Age:40 years, Occ:Household, R/o.Thippapur village of Vemulawada Mandal of Rajanna Sircilla District, Telangana State.
…. Defendants
Page 2 of 26 (fair)
OS No.84 of 2022
This suit is coming before this Court on 20.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri P. Manohar Advocate for the plaintiff and in the presence of Sri N. Satyanarayana Advocate for the defendant No.3 and defendant No.1 and 2 set exparte and having been heard and having stood over for consideration this court delivered the following:-
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff for declaration, declaring that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and 2 are joint owners with equal shares of tiled roof house bearing G.P.Door No.1-46 with open place measuring a total area of 303 sq.yards situated at
Thippapoor village of Vemulawada mandal, Rajanna Sircilla
District and for perpetual injunction, for declaration that the registered gift settlement deed document No.4536 of 2012 dated 11.07.2012 of the office of Sub Registrar, Vemulawada said to have been executed by late Hafeeza Banu in favour of the defendant No.3 with respect to a part of the above house property measuring 131.25 sq.yards and registered sale deed document
No.2321 of 2014 dated 18.06.2014 of the office of Sub Registrar,
Vemulawada said to have been executed by late Hafeeza Banu in favour of the defendant No.1 with respect to another part of the above house property measuring an area of 130 sq.yards and
Page 3 of 26 (fair)
OS No.84 of 2022
consequent mutation proceedings of aforesaid registered documents vide file No.28 of 2015 dated 22.06.2015 and 01 of 2015 dated 26.05.2015 of the office of Gramapanchayath
Thippapur village of Vemulawada mandal of Rajanna Sircilla
District are null and void and not binding on the plaintiff (herein after called as suit schedule property).
2.The brief averments of the plaint are:
Previously, one late Mohammed Fazil, S/o. Mohammed Afzal of Thippapur village, Vemulawada Mandal was the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and he died about 15 years back. During his life time, said Mohammed Fazil executed a registered gift settlement deed (hiba) as per Mohammed law by delivery of possession in favour of his wife late Hafeeza Banu, who accepted said gift (hiba) vide document No.526 of 1986 dated 20.03.1986 of the office of Sub Registrar, Vemulawada the copy of which obtained from the office of Sub Registrar Vemulawada is filed and by virtue of said gift settlement deed donee Hafeeza Banu became owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and remained in possession thereof for some period. Said Hafeeza
Page 4 of 26 (fair)
OS No.84 of 2022
Banu begot through her husband late Mohammed Fazil, (3) sons, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and 2 and (3) daughters i.e., the defendant No.3 herein and (2) others by names Haseena Banu and
Jareena respectively and late Mohammed Fazil, in his life time only, performed the marriages of all his children and since the time of their marriages, his (3) daughters including defendant
No.3 have been living in their in-law’s houses at different places, while plaintiff and defendant No.1 and 2 with their parents in the above suit schedule house.
Since Hafeeza Banu and her (3) sons, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and 2 herein lived together in the suit schedule house and her sons alone maintained her till she expired about (3) months back and her daughters much less the defendant No.3 have never maintained her nor have taken care of in any manner be. So, on 10.05.2010, in the presence of elders of Muslim
Community including Dr. Khairath Pasha maternal uncle of late
Mohammed Fazil (the previous owner of suit schedule house) an oral gift (hiba) was made by Hafeeza Banu as per Mohammedan
Law in favour of her (3) sons, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and 2 herein equally of the entire suit schedule house property by
Page 5 of 26 (fair)
OS No.84 of 2022
delivery of possession and the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and 2 accepted the said Gift (hiba) and so, accordingly, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and 2 have become joint owners with equal shares and remained in peaceful possession, occupation and enjoyment of the suit schedule house till now but, however their mother,
Hafeeza Banu lived in said house only under the case and maintenance of her sons and the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and 2 till her death. Further more and even otherwise, the plaintiff and defendant no.1 and 2 as heirs of the deceased Hafeeza Banu were entitled to inherit the suit schedule house after her demise under Islamic law of succession.
The defendant no.3 has no concern with the suit schedule house in view of the oral gift (hiba) made by Hafeeza Banu in favour of the plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2 as stated above.
Even then, she by colluding with defendant No.1 and 2 planned to grab the suit schedule house by defendant the plaintiff’s rights and brought into existence a registered gift settlement deed bearing doc.No.4536/2012, dated 11.07.2012 of the Office of Sub
Registrar, Vemulawada purporting to have been executed by late
Hafeeza Banu in favour of defendant No.3 with respect to a part of
Page 6 of 26 (fair)
OS No.84 of 2022
suit schedule house measuring an area of 131.25 sq.yards and registered sale deed bearing doc.No.2321/2014, dated 18.06.2014 of the office of Sub Registrar, Vemulawad said to have been executed by the late Hafeeza Banu in favour of the defendant No.1 with respect to another part of suit schedule house measuring an area of 130 sq.yards which are null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs in as much as the said registered documents were not executed by late Hafeeza Banu and she did not transfer any part of her property covered by said deeds. Further, possession was not delivered under alleged gift, it was not accepted by defendant No.3 there is no reference of acceptance in said deed and it is not a valid document under Mohammedan law. Similarly , with respect to registered sale deed, no consideration passed, no possession was delivered by her to defendant No.1 and said registered sale deed vide doc.No.2321/2014 dated 18.06.2014 is not valid as per Muslim law. So, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and 2 are joint owners while the defendant No.3 is stranger to entire suit schedule house property as submitted supra. The plaintiff has retired as ASI having served in Police Department and has been residing in Karimnagar town and recently in the month
Page 7 of 26 (fair)
OS No.84 of 2022
of January, 2019, when came over to Thippapur village was made to know about the two registered sale deeds and also about their mutation in Gramapanchayath records of Thippapur village.
Then, he obtained copies of said registered documents and mutation certificates. Finally on 02.04.2019 the defendants threats continued and the same are recurring. So, in these circumstances the relief of perpetual injunction is essential along with the relief that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and 2 are joint owners with equal shares of suit schedule house and also for declaration that the above registered documents are null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. Hence, the suit.
3.Defendant No.1 and 2 set exparte.
4.Defendant No.3 filed his written statement denying the averments in the plaint and further stating that the plaintiff, defendant No.1 and 2 herein are the sons and the defendant No.3,
Haseena Begun and Zarina Begum are the daughters of late
Mohammad Fazil and late Hafeeza Banu. During the life time of late Mohammad Fazil, S/o.Mohammad Afzal, who is father of the parties to the suit, Haseena Begum and Zarina Begum had
Page 8 of 26 (fair)
OS No.84 of 2022
acquired the country tiled roof house bearing G.P.Door No.1-46 with open place, total area 303 sq.yards as boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule, situated at Thippapur village of
Vemulawada mandal. The late Mohammad Fazil had gifted the said country tiled house with open place i.e., suit schedule property to his wife by executing a registered gift settlement deed (hiba) vide doc.No.256/1989, dated 20.03.1986 of Sub Registrar,
Vemulawada as per Mohammadian law by delivering the possession to his wife late Hafeeza Banu, who accepted the said gift and by virtue of said gift, she became owner and possessor of the suit schedule property. The mother of the parties to the suit got mutated the suit schedule property in her name in the then
Gramapanchayath records and remained in possession of the suit schedule property by paying house tax to Gramapanchayath,
Thippapur village till she gifted the suit schedule property to the defendant No.3 by executing a gift settlement deed, doc.No.4536/2012, dated 11.07.2017 of Sub Registrar,
Vemulawada by delivering the possession of gifted property i.e., part of suit schedule country tiled house admeasuring area of 131.25 sq.yards towards Western side. The defendant No.3
Page 9 of 26 (fair)
OS No.84 of 2022
accepted the said gift and by virtue of said gift settlement deed, the defendant No.3 became owner and possessor of the said gifted property and the defendant No.3 remained in possession of her gifted property till now. The defendant No.3 got mutated the said gifted house property in her name in Gramapanchayath records of
Thippapur village and renovated her said house by removing the country tiles by substituting Bangalore tiles and by changing the flooring. That the mother of the parties to the suit late Hafeeza
Banu had sold remaining part of the suit schedule property for her necessities towards Eastern side to the defendant No.1 by executing a registered sale deed doc.No.2321/2014 dated 18.06.2014 by delivering the vacant possession to the defendant
No.1. Since the date of said purchase, the defendant No.1 remained in possession thereof till he sold it to the wife of the defendant no.2. The defendant No.1 got mutated part of suit schedule property in the Gramapanchayath records of Thippapur village in his name by virtue of said registered sale deed. Later the defendant no.1 sold his said property to the wife of defendant No.2 by name Ahmadee Begum through registered sale deed, doc.No.125/2017, dated 17.01.2017 and the said Ahmadee
Page 10 of 26 (fair)
OS No.84 of 2022
Begum is still remained in possession thereof in her purchased property I.e, part of suit schedule property. That late Mohammad
Fazil during his lifetime, performed the marriages of all sons and daughters except the marriage of the defendant No.3. The marriage of the defendant No.3 was performed by her mother and the defendant no.2 (Mahammad Iqbal) with the amounts kept by her father. The defendant No.2 alone maintained his mother till she expired. The mother of the parties to the suit never gifted orally the suit schedule properties to her son on 10.05.2010.
Neither the plaintiffs nor the defendant No.1 maintained their mother during her life time. The plaintiff never stayed in the suit schedule property after giving the gift to the defendant No.1 and 3.
The plaintiff has no rights or interest what so ever over the suit schedule property and has no locus standi to file the suit.
The plaintiff has no rights, no cause of action to file the suit and is out of possession of the suit schedule property, hence the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with costs.
5.On rival contentions of both the parties, this court framed the following issues on 18.04.2023.
Page 11 of 26 (fair)
OS No.84 of 2022
Whether oral gift dated 10.05.2010 executed by 1. Hafeeza Banu in favour of the plaintiff is valid or not?
Whether gift settlement deed bearing 2. doc.No.4536/2012, dated 11.07.2012 with SRO, Vemulawada is valid or not ? Whether sale deed doc.No.2321/2014, dated 3. 18.06.2014 with SRO, Vemulawada is valid or not ?
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to be declared 4. as owner of Door No.1-46 to an extent of 303 sq.yards or not ?
To what relief? 5.
6.During the trial, the plaintiff is examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to 4. To disprove the case of the plaintiff, defendant No.3 is examined as DW.1 and got marked Ex.B1 to
B10. Jogani Shankar is examined as DW.2 and one Bandari
Gangadhar is examined DW3.
7.Heard the arguments by both sides and perused the record.
8.Issues No.1 to 4:
The issues No.1 to 3 are inter connected with each other in respect of the suit schedule property and also transfer made by
Mohammed Fazil to his wife Hafeeza Banu and from Hafeeza Banu
Page 12 of 26 (fair)
OS No.84 of 2022
to defendant No.3 and from Hafeeza Banu to defendant No.1 and from defendant No.1 to Ameena Bee (wife of defendant No.2) and mutation of names of defendant No.3 and wife of defendant No.2 in respect of their extent of property and there are common pleadings in all the issues, therefore, this Court feels it appropriate to answer all the issues together.
9.In order to prove the case, plaintiff himself examined as
PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A4. Ex.A1: Attested true copy of gift settlement deed, doc.No.526/1986. Ex.A2: Attested true copy of gift settlement deed doc.No.4536/2012. Ex.A3: True copy of sale deed doc.No.2321/2014.
10.It is the case of the plaintiff that late Mohammed Fazil, S/o.
Mohammed Afzal was the owner and possessor of tiled roof house bearing No.1-46 with open place measuring total area of 303 sq.yards of Thippapur village Vemulawada mandal i.e., suit schedule property. The Mohammed Fazil died about 15 years back and he executed during his life time a registered gift settlement deed (Hiba) as per Mohammadian law and delivered his possession in favour of his wife late Hafeeza Banu vide
Page 13 of 26 (fair)
OS No.84 of 2022
doc.No.526/1986 dated 20.03.1986 and thereafter she became owner and possessor of the suit land. Thereafter, on 10.05.2010 in the presence of Dr. Khairath Pasha who is maternal uncle of late Mohammed Fazil and a oral gift was made by the Hafeeza
Banu as per Mohammadian law in favour of plaintiff, defendant
No.1 and 2 equally and delivered the possession to them.
Thereafter, plaintiff and defendant No.1 and 2 have became joint owner with equal shares and remained in peaceful possession and enjoyment till now.
11.According to PW.1, he testified that his mother Smt Hafeeza
Banu, W/o. Mahammed Fazil executed oral gift in favour of plaintiff and defendant No.1 and 2 equally in respect of suit schedule property in the presence of one Dr. Khairath Pasha and delivered the possession and since then plaintiff and defendant
No.1 and 2 are joint owners and are in equal possession and enjoyment over the suit house equally. It is further contended that defendant No.3 is no way concerned with the suit schedule house in view of oral Hiba (gift). The Defendant No.3 by colluding with defendant No.1 and 2 and plan to grab the suit schedule property and brought into existence a registered gift settlement
Page 14 of 26 (fair)
OS No.84 of 2022
deed vide doc.No.4536/2012, dated 11.07.2012 in respect of part of suit schedule property measuring an area of 131.2 sq. yards and registered sale deed vide doc.No.2321/2014, dated 18.06.2014 executed by Hafeeza Banu in favour of defendant No.1 in respect of another part of suit schedule property measuring to an area 130 sq.yards. It is further contended that late Hafeeza
Banu did not transfer any part of her property nor delivered the possession to defendant No.1 and 3. It is further contended that as plaintiff is a retired A.S.I and has been residing in Karimnagar and he verified the Gramapanchayath records of Thippapur and came to know about the above said two registered deeds in respect of defendant No.1 and 3 and filed this suit against defendant No.1 to 3 in respect of suit schedule property.
12.The learned counsel for defendant No.3 cross examined
PW.1 at length and PW.1 categorically admitted that since 8 years he along with his family members residing at Karimnagar by constructing a house. His Aadhar card and voter card by address of Karimnagar. He cannot say the exact measurement of East-
West and North – South of suit schedule property. He reported that he does not know whose name originally the suit schedule
Page 15 of 26 (fair)
OS No.84 of 2022
property was purchased. PW.1 further admitted that his mother purchased the suit schedule property from their paternal mother but he does not know the sale consideration. PW.1 admitted that today he himself and defendant No.1 came to Court together.
PW.1 admitted that during the life time of his father, who purchased the suit schedule property through registered sale deed. Till the death of his father, who resided in the suit schedule property. PW.1 further admitted that his father gifted the suit schedule property to his mother in the year 1989 through gift deed doc.No.256/989, dated 20.03.1989. PW.1 further admitted that suit schedule property was gifted by his mother to defendant No.3. Defendant No.3 is his sister. PW.1 further admitted that his mother executed a sale deed with regard to the remaining half portion of the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.1 vide doc.No.2321/2014, dated 18.06.2014.
Defendant No.2 is his younger brother. PW.1 further admitted that presently he himself and defendant No.1 are residing at
Karimnagar. PW.1 further admitted that he has not filed any document before this Court to show that he is in possession of suit schedule property. PW.1 denied that his mother gifted half
Page 16 of 26 (fair)
OS No.84 of 2022
portion of suit schedule property to defendant No.3 vide doc.No.4536/2012, dated 11.07.2012 and defendant No.3 accepted the said gift. PW.1 further denied that defendant No.3 is not residing in the portion of suit schedule property which was gifted by his mother. He further denied that basing on the gift deed the name of defendant No.3 changed in the
Gramapanchayath records and she is paying tax. PW.1 further denied that defendant No.3 along with her family members are residing in the gifted property by repairing the said house. PW.1 further denied that basing on the sale deed doc.No.2321/2014,
dated 18.06.2014 the name of defendant No.1 changed in the
Gramapanchayath records and he is paying the house tax. PW.1 further denied that defendant No.1 sold his property in favour of wife of defendant no.2 vide doc.No.125/2017 dated 17.01.2017 and since then wife of defendant No.2 is in possession and same is mutated in her name in Gramapanchayath records. PW.1 further denied that his father did not perform the marriage of defendant
No.3 during his life time. PW.1 denied that his mother and the defendant No.2 only performed the marriage of defendant No.3.
He further denied that during the life time of his mother,
Page 17 of 26 (fair)
OS No.84 of 2022
defendant No.2 only looked after her welfare. PW.1 denied that on 10.05.2010 no transfer was effected during the life time of his mother. PW.1 denied that he himself and defendant No.1 colluded with each other and filed this false suit with an intention to extract money from defendant No.3. PW.1 denied that he, himself and defendant No.1 are not having any right over the suit schedule property. PW.1 denied that he, himself and defendant
No.1 never resided in the suit schedule property. PW.1 denied that presently defendant No.3 and her family members only residing in the suit schedule property and who are having address proof on the same house.
13.Now, this Court has to look into whether the plaintiff proved the transfer made by late Hafeeza Banu to defendant No.3 under
Ex.B1/registered gift deed in respect of H.No.1-46 measuring 131.25 sq.yards as fraudulent and with an intention to defeat or delay the claim of the plaintiff. In order to prove his aspect, the plaintiff relied on his own evidence and on Ex.A1 to A4 but Ex.A1 to A4 clearly shows that Ex.A1 executed by Mohammed Fazil in favour of late Hafeeza Banu in respect part of suit schedule property and delivered the possession to her. Ex.A2/Gift
Page 18 of 26 (fair)
OS No.84 of 2022
settlement deed executed by Hafeeza Banu in favour of defendant
No.3 in respect of part of remaining suit schedule property i.e., part of open place bearing H.No.1-46 measuring 131.25 sq.yards out of total site area I.e, 303 sq.yards having tiled roof, situated at
Thippapur village of Vemulawada mandal which is bounded as
East: part of open place fo the doner pertaining to H.No.1-46,
West: house of Ameeruddin, North: Road, South: house of Sarvar
Pasha. Ex.A3/sale deed, it clearly shows that Hafeeza Banu executed it in favour of defendant No.1 in respect of the remaining part of suit schedule property i.e., open place pertaining to
H.No.1-46 measuring 130 sq.yards, situated at Thippapur village of Vemulawada mandal which is bounded as East: open place of
Moram Bee and others West: part of open place and house of vendor (H.No.1-46) North: Road, South: House and open place of
MD Sarvar Pasha.
14.On perusal of Ex.A1 to A4, there is no mention that late
Hafeeza Banu executed it in favour of plaintiff but those documents are clearly shows that late Hafeeza Banu executed gift deed in favour of defendant No.3 in respect of part of suit schedule property I.e, to an extent of 131.25 sq.yards and executed
Page 19 of 26 (fair)
OS No.84 of 2022
registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 for part of remaining portion i.e., measuring 130 sq.yards out of suit schedule property. To prove the contention of the plaintiff, he has not lead any cogent, trustworthy, reliable evidence, nor filed any documents. It is the contention of the plaintiff that his mother Smt. Late Hafeeza Banu executed oral gift deed in his favour as well as in favour of defendant No.1 and 2 in respect of suit schedule property equally and since then they are in joint possession over it, but there is no such evidence on record.
Moreover, during cross examination of PW.1, he categorically admitted that his mother executed Ex.A1 in favour of defendant
No.3 for part of suit schedule property as stated above and executed Ex.A03 for part of remaining property in respect of defendant No.1 and their names are mutated in G.P records in respect of their shares. He denied that defendant No.1 sold his share to the wife of defendant No.2 vide doc.No.125/2017 dated 17.01.2017 and her name was mutated in G.P records. But plaintiff not challenged said document as such it is presume that the said document is accepted by the plaintiff.
Page 20 of 26 (fair)
OS No.84 of 2022
15.The plaintiff did not prove the fact that on 10.05.2010, his mother Smt. Hafeeza Banu orally executed gift deed in his favour as well as in the favour of defendant No.1 and 2 in respect of suit schedule property equally and since then they are in joint possession and enjoyment over their respective shares.
16.Now coming to the defendant No.3, it is the contention of the defendant No.3 is that her mother-in-law/Smt. Hafeeza Banu got suit schedule property from Md. Fazil under Ex.A1 and later she became owner of suit schedule property and Hafeeza Banu executed Ex.B1 in her favour for the part of suit schedule property measuring 131.25 sq.yards in H.No.146 and later she executed registered sale deed under Ex.A3 for remaining part of suit schedule property i.e., measuring 130 sq.yards and thereafter, defendant No.1 got mutated his name in Gramapanchayath records and later he sold the same to Ameena Bee (wife of defendant No.2) vide doc. No.125/2017 dated 17.01.2017 and since then, she is remaining in her share of property along with her family and defendant No.2 remaining his share of property.
Page 21 of 26 (fair)
OS No.84 of 2022
17. To refute the contention of the plaintiff, defendant No.3 examined herself as DW.1 and got marked Ex.B1 to B10.
Defendant No.3 also examined one Jogini Shankar and Bandari
Gangadhar as Dws.2 and 3 to support her case and to prove her title and possession over the suit schedule property. Besides it, she relied upon the documentary evidence ie., Ex.B1 to B10
Ex.B1: Original registered gift settlement deed, doc.No.4536/2012,
dt:11.07.2012 of Sub Registrar, Vemulawada executed by late
Hafeeza Banu in my favour. Ex.B2: Original mutation certificate, vide file No.28/2015, dt:22.06.2015 issued by Panchayath
Secretary, Thippapur village in my favour. Ex.B3: Original
Mutation fee payment receipt, dt:22.06.2015 issued by
Panchayath Secretary, Thippapur village in my favour. Ex.B4:
Original house tax payment receipt, dt:26.05.2016 issued by
Panchayath Secretary, Thippapur village in my favour for a period of 2016-2017 year. Ex.B5: Original house tax payment receipt,
dt:06.03.2023 issued by Municipal Council, Vemulawada in my
favour for a period from 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2023. Ex.B6:
Original property tax bill payment receipt, dt:16.01.2024, issued by Vemulawada Municipality in my favour for a period from
Page 22 of 26 (fair)
OS No.84 of 2022
01.04.2023 to 31.03.2024. Ex.B7: Original property tax bill payment receipt, dt:24.04.2025 issued by Vemulawada
Municipality in my favour for a period from 01.04.2025 to 31.03.2026. Ex.B8: My original aadhar card bearing
No.863664370296. Ex.B9: My husband Md. Abdul Ravoof original aadhar card No.784925259373. Ex.B10: My son Mohammad
Abdul Aslam original aadhar card No.690900615793. Ex.B1 clearly shows that Smt. Hafeeza Banu executed same in favour of defendant No.3 in respect of tile roof house along with part of open place bearing H.No.1-46 admeasuring 131.25 sq.yards out of her total site area of 303 sq.yards which is bounded as East: part of open place of doner pertaining to house No.1-46, West: house of
Ameenuddin, North: Road and South: house of Sharvar Pasha.
Ex.B2 clearly shows that the name of plaintiff was mutated in
Gramapanchayath records in respect of her share of property in suits schedule property. Ex.B3, Ex.B4 are house tax receipts which stands in the name of plaintiff in respect of her share of property in suit schedule property. Ex.B5 to B7 are the property tax receipts which stands in the name of defendant No.3 uin respect of her share of property in suit schedule property. Ex.B8
Page 23 of 26 (fair)
OS No.84 of 2022
to 10 are clearly stated the address as house No.1-46, Thippapur
Karimnagar, Vemulawada Telangana State. The above said documents are clearly established that the mother of defendant
No.3 namely Hafeeza Banu executed a gift settlement deed in favour defendant No.3 in respect of part of suit schedule property
I.e, meantime 131.25 sq.yards in H.No.1-46 and thereafter the name of defendant No.3 was mutated in municipal records and she paid property tad to the concerned Municipal authority and she obtained electricity connection to the above said her property she also mentioned her address proof by showing her above said house. Further, the plaintiff during his cross examination he admitted the said fact that her mother executed EX.B1/A2 in favour of defendant No.3 and she is in possession over her part of schedule property.
18.To support of the case of the defendant No.3 defendant No.2 and 3 are examined and they filed their chief affidavit to support the case of the defendant No.3. The learned counsel for the plaintiff though cross examined DW.2 and 3 but nothing worth while is elicited to disprove the contention of the defendant No.3.
Page 24 of 26 (fair)
OS No.84 of 2022
19.The plaintiff further failed to prove his case by leading any supporting witness or filed any documentary proof to show that her mother Smt. Hafeeza Banu executed a oral gift deed on 10.05.2010 in his favour as well as in the favour of defendant No.1 and 2 equally out of suit schedule property and since then they are in in joint possession and enjoyment over it. Therefore, under the fact and circumstance, the contention of the plaintiff has no force and the case of the defendant No.3 is more probable that fo the plaintiff, as per the admitted fact the defendant No.3 is in possession over her share out of suit schedule property and since last 8 years the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are residing in
Karimnagar along with their family, which clearly shows that neither the plaint nor defendant No.1 are in possession over suit schedule property as on the dater of filing of the suit. In view of the discussion made above, this Court concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish his title over the suit schedule property and in the absence of any proof showing their title, possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property, the plaintiff is not entitled for the equitable relief of injunction.
Page 25 of 26 (fair)
OS No.84 of 2022
20.In view of the above said discussion, this Court came to a safe conclusion that the D.3 refuted the case of the plaintiff and successfully proved her version against the plaintiff. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff liable to be dismissed. Therefore, the issue
No.1 to 4 are answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant No.3.
21.Issue No.5
In the result, the suit is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr.II, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20 thday of April,
2026.
Senior Civil Judge, cum
Addl.Chief Judl. Magistrate Vemulawada.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Plaintiffs: PW-1: Mohammed Showkath
For Defendant:- DW.1: Shaheen DW.2: Jogani Shankar DW.3: Bandari Gangadhar
Page 26 of 26 (fair)
OS No.84 of 2022
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Plaintiffs:
Ex.A1: Attested true copy of gift settlement deed, doc.No.526/1986 Ex.A2: Attested true copy of gift settlement deed doc.No.4536/2012 Ex.A3: True copy of sale deed doc.No.2321/2014 Ex.A4: Market value certificate, dated 20.04.2019.
For Defendant:- Ex.B1: Original registered gift settlement deed, doc.No.4536/2012,
dt:11.07.2012 of Sub Registrar, Vemulawada executed by late
Hafeeza Banu in my favour. Ex.B2: Original mutation certificate, vide file No.28/2015,
dt:22.06.2015 issued by Panchayath Secretary, Thippapur village
in my favour. Ex.B3: Original Mutation fee payment receipt, dt:22.06.2015 issued by Panchayath Secretary, Thippapur village in my favour. Ex.B4: Original house tax payment receipt, dt:26.05.2016 issued by Panchayath Secretary, Thippapur village in my favour for a period of 2016-2017 year Ex.B5: Original house tax payment receipt, dt:06.03.2023 issued by Municipal Council, Vemulawada in my favour for a period from 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2023. Ex.B6: Original property tax bill payment receipt, dt:16.01.2024, issued by Vemulawada Municipality in my favour for a period from 01.04.2023 to 31.03.2024. Ex.B7: Original property tax bill payment receipt, dt:24.04.2025 issued by Vemulawada Municipality in my favour for a period from 01.04.2025 to 31.03.2026. Ex.B8: My original aadhar card bearing No.863664370296 Ex.B9: My husband Md. Abdul Ravoof original aadhar card No.784925259373 Ex.B10: My son Mohammad Abdul Aslam original aadhar card No.690900615793.
Senior Civil Judge, cum
Addl.Chief Judl. Magistrate Vemulawada.