Sri. B. Rama Rao

IA No. 644/2025, 645/2025, 646/2025 & 660/2025 in O.S.No. 1623/2025..1 of 11..

IN THE COURT OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CITY CIVIL

COURT AT:: HYDERABAD

PRESENT: Smt. P. Devi Manasa, IV Senior Civil Judge, FAC XVIII Addl. Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court : Hyderabad.

DATED, THIS THE 20th DAY OF APRIL, 2026

I.A No.644 of 2025, 645 of 2025, 646 of 2025 & 660 of 2025 IN

O.S.No. 1623 of 2025

Between:-

Mohammed Zaki, Son of Late Mohd Anwar, aged about: 42 years. Occupation: Business, Resident of H.No.20-4-209/19. Near Standard School, Khilwat, Charminar Hyderabad-500002

.... Petitioner/Plaintiff

AND

1. Munawwar Sultana, wife of late Mohd. Anwar, Aged about: 62, Occupation: Household, Resident of H.No.20-4-209/19, Near Standard School, Khilwat, Charminar Hyderabad-500002.

2. Mohd. Sami, son of late Mohd. Anwar, Aged About: 43, Occupation: Business, Resident of H.No.20-4-209/19, Near Standard School, Khilwat, Charminar Hyderabad-500002.

3. Mohd. Altaf, son of late Mohd. Anwar, Aged about: 35, Occupation: Business, Resident of H.No.20-4-209/19, Near Standard School, Khilwat, Charminar Hyderabad-500002.

4. Mrs. Asma, wife of Syed. Khaisar, Aged about:40, Occupation: Household, Resident of H.No.20-4- 209/19, Near Standard School, Khilwat, Charminar, Hyderabad - 500002.

IA No. 644/2025, 645/2025, 646/2025 & 660/2025 in O.S.No. 1623/2025..2 of 11..

5. Mrs. Arshiya, wife of Mohd. Khaja, Aged about: 38, Occupation: Household, Resident of H.No. 20-4-209/19, Near Standard School, Khilwat, Charminar Hyderabad-500002.

6. Mrs. Asfiya Sultana, wife of Mohd. Altaf, Aged about: 28, Occupation: Household, Resident of H.No.20-4-209/19, Near Standard School, Khilwat, Charminar Hyderabad-500002.

7. Mrs. Shaista Sultana, wife of Mohd. Amir, Aged about:26 Years, Occupation: Household, Resident of H.No.20-4-209/19, Near Standard School, Khilwat, Charminar, Hyderabad-500002.

..Respondents/Defendants

This petition is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. Imran Mahmood, Counsel for the Petitioner/Plaintiff and Sri. G. Anirudh Reddy, Counsel for Respondent No.1/Defendant no.1 to Respondent/Defendant No.3, 5 to 7, Respondent/Defendant No.4 stood exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:-

- C O M M O N O R D E R -

1. These petitions are filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, The petitioner, has filed a suit seeking partition and separate possession of two properties (Schedule A and B) along with costs, submitting that he and

Respondents 1 to 7 (his mother and siblings) are the legal heirs of his father who died intestate in 2020. He submits that Schedule A property was solely owned by his father and is now jointly held by all heirs as per their respective

Sharia shares, while Schedule B property includes his father’s 1/4th share along with the petitioner’s own independent 1/4th share. Despite repeated requests for amicable partition, the respondents have delayed the process, and

IA No. 644/2025, 645/2025, 646/2025 & 660/2025 in O.S.No. 1623/2025..3 of 11..

Respondent No.2 has allegedly begun demolition and construction activities in

Schedule A property, causing damage and affecting the petitioner’s rights. The petitioner further submits that he is in possession of part of Schedule A and conducting his proprietary business in Schedule B property, but the respondents are interfering with his possession, business activities, and attempting to create third-party rights. After issuing a legal notice which went unheeded, he has approached the court seeking partition and a temporary injunctions to restrain the respondents from alienating, interfering with the properitary business in schedule B property, interfering with the peaceful possesion in first floor of Schedule A, and demolishing structure and raising from any additional construction until final disposal of the suit and hence prays to allow the petition.

2. Respondent No.4 went exparte, Respondents no 1 to 3,5 to 7 filed common counter,wherein The respondents, denied the petitioner’s allegations and contending that the petition is false, baseless, and filed with mala fide intention. While admitting the relationship between the parties, the death of

Late Mohd. Anwar, and the nature of Schedule A property along with the respective Sharia shares, the respondents assert that the petitioner has suppressed material facts, including omission of another property liable for

IA No. 644/2025, 645/2025, 646/2025 & 660/2025 in O.S.No. 1623/2025..4 of 11..

partition. They submit that Schedule B property is a joint property owned by the petitioner, his father, and Respondents 2 and 3, and therefore the petitioner, being a co-owner, cannot seek injunction against other co-owners.

The respondents deny allegations of illegal demolition, submitting instead that construction of a mulgi was collectively decided to generate income for

Respondent No.1, and that the petitioner is creating unnecessary obstruction.

They further contend that no ouster or harm has been caused to the petitioner, and that joint properties cannot be restrained or partitioned as claimed. The respondents also contend that the petitioner has no prima facie case, and that the balance of convenience lies in their favor as co-owners in possession.

Accordingly, they pray for dismissal of the petition with exemplary costs.

3. During inquiry petitioner got exhibited, Ex.P1 to P4 i.e. No documents are marked on behalf of respondents.

4. Now point for determination is:

1. Whether the petitioner has made out a case for grant of temporary injunctions against the respondents?

2. To what reliefs?

5. POINT No.1

IA No. 644/2025, 645/2025, 646/2025 & 660/2025 in O.S.No. 1623/2025..5 of 11..

The present petitions are filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking grant of temporary injunctions. The relief of temporary injunction is governed by well-settled principles, namely: (i) existence of a prima facie case, (ii) balance of convenience, and (iii) likelihood of irreparable injury to the petitioner in the absence of such relief. These three requirements must co-exist for granting an injunction.

6. At the outset, the relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The petitioner and Respondents 1 to 7 are admittedly the legal heirs of Late Mohd.

Anwar, who died intestate in the year 2020. It is also not in dispute that

Schedule A property originally belonged to the deceased and that the parties have succeeded to the same as co-owners in accordance with their respective shares under Mohammedan law. With regard to Schedule B property, though there is some dispute as to its exact nature, it is at least prima facie established that the petitioner has an independent share therein along with the share derived from his father.

7. The petitioner, in support of his claim, has relied upon Exs. P1 and P2, which are certified copies of registered sale deeds pertaining to Schedule A and B properties, along with market value and encumbrance certificates. These documents prima facie establish the title of the father of the petitioner over

Schedule A property and the existence of rights in Schedule B property. Ex.P3

IA No. 644/2025, 645/2025, 646/2025 & 660/2025 in O.S.No. 1623/2025..6 of 11..

photographs indicate that certain construction activity is ongoing, and Ex.P4 legal notice demonstrates that the petitioner had demanded partition and objected to the alleged acts of the respondents prior to filing of the suit.

Significantly, no documentary evidence has been produced on behalf of the respondents to substantiate their contentions.

8. The petitioner has made a compelling case for a prima facie right to seek the grant of a temporary injunction. The petitioner, as a co-owner of both the

Schedule A and Schedule B properties, has a clear right to seek partition and protect his share from any actions that may cause harm or prejudice to his interest. The allegation of unauthorized demolition and new construction in the

Schedule A property by Respondent No.2 raises serious concerns regarding the preservation of the joint property. This conduct, if left unchecked, could irreparably alter the character of the property, complicating any potential partition. Moreover, the petitioner’s claim of interference with his possession of the first floor of Schedule A property and his proprietary business activities in Schedule B property is supported by credible evidence. The photographs (Ex.P3) showing ongoing construction activities and the legal notice (Ex.P4) issued to the respondents prior to the filing of the suit underscore the urgency of the matter.

IA No. 644/2025, 645/2025, 646/2025 & 660/2025 in O.S.No. 1623/2025..7 of 11..

9. These actions are not only unjustified but also appear to be intentional and damaging to the petitioner’s rights. At this stage, the Court need not resolve all factual disputes but must consider whether the petitioner’s claims present a legitimate and substantial issue to be adjudicated. The evidence on record, including the petitioner’s possession and business interests, prima facie establish a strong case for the issuance of a temporary injunction.

10. In addition to the prima facie case, the legal position regarding co-owners and injunctions is well settled. While it is true that a co-owner generally cannot exclude another co-owner, this principle does not apply where one co- owner is committing acts that prejudice the rights of the others, such as unauthorized construction, demolition, or interference with possession. The respondent’s argument that construction was undertaken with the consent of all co-owners lacks credibility, as no documentary evidence or clear proof has been presented to substantiate this claim. The petitioner has explicitly alleged that Respondent No.2’s actions have been taken without the consent of all co- owners and that they are prejudicing his share in the joint property. The fact that Respondent No.2 proceeded with demolition and construction activities, despite the petitioner’s repeated objections and the issuance of a legal notice (Ex.P4), strongly supports the petitioner’s claim that such actions are not only unauthorized but also unlawful. In light of these circumstances, the petitioner

IA No. 644/2025, 645/2025, 646/2025 & 660/2025 in O.S.No. 1623/2025..8 of 11..

is well within his rights to seek an injunction to prevent further damage to the joint property and interference with his lawful possession and business activities. The Court must protect the rights of the petitioner at this interlocutory stage to avoid causing irreparable harm that cannot be undone later.

11. With regard to balance of convenience, if the respondents are not restrained and are permitted to proceed with demolition or new construction, or to create third-party rights, the nature and character of the property may be altered, leading to complications in effecting partition. On the other hand, if an injunction is granted, the respondents would only be prevented from altering the existing condition of the property, and no irreparable prejudice would be caused to them as they continue to remain co-owners. Thus, the balance of convenience tilts in favour of maintaining status quo.

12. On the aspect of irreparable injury, any unauthorized construction, demolition, or alienation of joint property would result in changes that cannot be easily undone and may lead to multiplicity of proceedings. Similarly, interference with the petitioner’s possession and business activities would cause loss that may not be adequately compensated in monetary terms. Therefore, the petitioner has also established that he would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is refused.

IA No. 644/2025, 645/2025, 646/2025 & 660/2025 in O.S.No. 1623/2025..9 of 11..

13. The judgments cited by the respondents, namely Dalpat Kumar and others v. Prahlad Singh (1992) 1 SCC 719, and Babrubhan v. Surender Pal (CR No.

2034 of 2020), suggest that a co-owner cannot seek an injunction against another co-owner in the absence of an act of ouster or prejudice. However, this principle applies primarily where there are no acts of mismanagement or waste occurring in the joint property. In the present case, the petitioner has specifically alleged that unauthorized demolition, construction, and interference with his business are taking place, which, if true, are clear acts of prejudice and waste affecting the joint property. Therefore, the general rule cited by the respondents does not apply here, as the petitioner is not simply seeking a partition but is also attempting to prevent damage to the property and interference with his rights.

14. In The J. Rajendran Pillai v. Bhasi OP(C) 2487 of 2019, as cited by the petitioner, is more directly applicable. This case reinforces the principle that even among co-owners, one party can seek an injunction where the acts of the other co-owners are prejudicial to their rights, such as in cases of unauthorized construction or interference with possession. This principle aligns with the facts at hand, where the petitioner’s rights are clearly at risk due to the actions of the respondents, justifying the need for a temporary injunction.

IA No. 644/2025, 645/2025, 646/2025 & 660/2025 in O.S.No. 1623/2025..10 of 11..

In view of the above discussion, this Court holds that the petitioner is entitled to temporary injunctions. Accordingly, point is answered in favour of petitioners.

15. Point No.2

In the Result, petitions are allowed, granting temporary inujnctions,the respondents are restrained from:

(i) alienating or creating third-party interests in Schedule A and B properties;

(ii) demolishing existing structures or raising any new construction in Schedule

A property

(iii) interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the first floor portion of Schedule A property and

(iv) interfering with the petitioner’s proprietary business activities in Schedule

B property, until disposal of the suit. There shall be no order as to costs.

(Typed by me on my laptop, corrected in soft copy and pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 20th day of April, 2026.)

IV Senior Civil Judge, FAC of XVIII Addl. Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

IA No. 644/2025, 645/2025, 646/2025 & 660/2025 in O.S.No. 1623/2025..11 of 11..

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

- NONE -

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:

Ex.P1:Certified copy of Sale deed No. 740 of 1991, dated. 19.08.1991, along with original market value certificate and Encumbrance certificate

Ex.P2:Certified Copy of Sale Deed No. 273 of 2002, dated 07.03.2002 along with original market value certificate and Encumbrance certificate

Ex.P3:Original Positive photographs of Schedule A property and B property along with Pendrive.

Ex.P4:Office copy of Legal Notice dated: 01.12.2025 along with original postal receipt and acknowledgement card

FOR RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT: NIL

IV Senior Civil Judge, FAC of XVIII Addl. Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

IA No. 644/2025, 645/2025, 646/2025 & 660/2025 in O.S.No. 1623/2025..1 of 11..

IN THE COURT OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CITY CIVIL

COURT AT:: HYDERABAD

PRESENT: Smt. P. Devi Manasa, IV Senior Civil Judge, FAC XVIII Addl. Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court : Hyderabad.

DATED, THIS THE 20th DAY OF APRIL, 2026

I.A No.644 of 2025, 645 of 2025, 646 of 2025 & 660 of 2025 IN

O.S.No. 1623 of 2025

Between:-

Mohammed Zaki, Son of Late Mohd Anwar, aged about: 42 years. Occupation: Business, Resident of H.No.20-4-209/19. Near Standard School, Khilwat, Charminar Hyderabad-500002

.... Petitioner/Plaintiff

AND

1. Munawwar Sultana, wife of late Mohd. Anwar, Aged about: 62, Occupation: Household, Resident of H.No.20-4-209/19, Near Standard School, Khilwat, Charminar Hyderabad-500002.

2. Mohd. Sami, son of late Mohd. Anwar, Aged About: 43, Occupation: Business, Resident of H.No.20-4-209/19, Near Standard School, Khilwat, Charminar Hyderabad-500002.

3. Mohd. Altaf, son of late Mohd. Anwar, Aged about: 35, Occupation: Business, Resident of H.No.20-4-209/19, Near Standard School, Khilwat, Charminar Hyderabad-500002.

4. Mrs. Asma, wife of Syed. Khaisar, Aged about:40, Occupation: Household, Resident of H.No.20-4- 209/19, Near Standard School, Khilwat, Charminar, Hyderabad - 500002.

IA No. 644/2025, 645/2025, 646/2025 & 660/2025 in O.S.No. 1623/2025..2 of 11..

5. Mrs. Arshiya, wife of Mohd. Khaja, Aged about: 38, Occupation: Household, Resident of H.No. 20-4-209/19, Near Standard School, Khilwat, Charminar Hyderabad-500002.

6. Mrs. Asfiya Sultana, wife of Mohd. Altaf, Aged about: 28, Occupation: Household, Resident of H.No.20-4-209/19, Near Standard School, Khilwat, Charminar Hyderabad-500002.

7. Mrs. Shaista Sultana, wife of Mohd. Amir, Aged about:26 Years, Occupation: Household, Resident of H.No.20-4-209/19, Near Standard School, Khilwat, Charminar, Hyderabad-500002.

..Respondents/Defendants

This petition is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. Imran Mahmood, Counsel for the Petitioner/Plaintiff and Sri. G. Anirudh Reddy, Counsel for Respondent No.1/Defendant no.1 to Respondent/Defendant No.3, 5 to 7, Respondent/Defendant No.4 stood exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:-

- C O M M O N O R D E R -

1. These petitions are filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, The petitioner, has filed a suit seeking partition and separate possession of two properties (Schedule A and B) along with costs, submitting that he and

Respondents 1 to 7 (his mother and siblings) are the legal heirs of his father who died intestate in 2020. He submits that Schedule A property was solely owned by his father and is now jointly held by all heirs as per their respective

Sharia shares, while Schedule B property includes his father’s 1/4th share along with the petitioner’s own independent 1/4th share. Despite repeated requests for amicable partition, the respondents have delayed the process, and

IA No. 644/2025, 645/2025, 646/2025 & 660/2025 in O.S.No. 1623/2025..3 of 11..

Respondent No.2 has allegedly begun demolition and construction activities in

Schedule A property, causing damage and affecting the petitioner’s rights. The petitioner further submits that he is in possession of part of Schedule A and conducting his proprietary business in Schedule B property, but the respondents are interfering with his possession, business activities, and attempting to create third-party rights. After issuing a legal notice which went unheeded, he has approached the court seeking partition and a temporary injunctions to restrain the respondents from alienating, interfering with the properitary business in schedule B property, interfering with the peaceful possesion in first floor of Schedule A, and demolishing structure and raising from any additional construction until final disposal of the suit and hence prays to allow the petition.

2. Respondent No.4 went exparte, Respondents no 1 to 3,5 to 7 filed common counter,wherein The respondents, denied the petitioner’s allegations and contending that the petition is false, baseless, and filed with mala fide intention. While admitting the relationship between the parties, the death of

Late Mohd. Anwar, and the nature of Schedule A property along with the respective Sharia shares, the respondents assert that the petitioner has suppressed material facts, including omission of another property liable for

IA No. 644/2025, 645/2025, 646/2025 & 660/2025 in O.S.No. 1623/2025..4 of 11..

partition. They submit that Schedule B property is a joint property owned by the petitioner, his father, and Respondents 2 and 3, and therefore the petitioner, being a co-owner, cannot seek injunction against other co-owners.

The respondents deny allegations of illegal demolition, submitting instead that construction of a mulgi was collectively decided to generate income for

Respondent No.1, and that the petitioner is creating unnecessary obstruction.

They further contend that no ouster or harm has been caused to the petitioner, and that joint properties cannot be restrained or partitioned as claimed. The respondents also contend that the petitioner has no prima facie case, and that the balance of convenience lies in their favor as co-owners in possession.

Accordingly, they pray for dismissal of the petition with exemplary costs.

3. During inquiry petitioner got exhibited, Ex.P1 to P4 i.e. No documents are marked on behalf of respondents.

4. Now point for determination is:

1. Whether the petitioner has made out a case for grant of temporary injunctions against the respondents?

2. To what reliefs?

5. POINT No.1

IA No. 644/2025, 645/2025, 646/2025 & 660/2025 in O.S.No. 1623/2025..5 of 11..

The present petitions are filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking grant of temporary injunctions. The relief of temporary injunction is governed by well-settled principles, namely: (i) existence of a prima facie case, (ii) balance of convenience, and (iii) likelihood of irreparable injury to the petitioner in the absence of such relief. These three requirements must co-exist for granting an injunction.

6. At the outset, the relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The petitioner and Respondents 1 to 7 are admittedly the legal heirs of Late Mohd.

Anwar, who died intestate in the year 2020. It is also not in dispute that

Schedule A property originally belonged to the deceased and that the parties have succeeded to the same as co-owners in accordance with their respective shares under Mohammedan law. With regard to Schedule B property, though there is some dispute as to its exact nature, it is at least prima facie established that the petitioner has an independent share therein along with the share derived from his father.

7. The petitioner, in support of his claim, has relied upon Exs. P1 and P2, which are certified copies of registered sale deeds pertaining to Schedule A and B properties, along with market value and encumbrance certificates. These documents prima facie establish the title of the father of the petitioner over

Schedule A property and the existence of rights in Schedule B property. Ex.P3

IA No. 644/2025, 645/2025, 646/2025 & 660/2025 in O.S.No. 1623/2025..6 of 11..

photographs indicate that certain construction activity is ongoing, and Ex.P4 legal notice demonstrates that the petitioner had demanded partition and objected to the alleged acts of the respondents prior to filing of the suit.

Significantly, no documentary evidence has been produced on behalf of the respondents to substantiate their contentions.

8. The petitioner has made a compelling case for a prima facie right to seek the grant of a temporary injunction. The petitioner, as a co-owner of both the

Schedule A and Schedule B properties, has a clear right to seek partition and protect his share from any actions that may cause harm or prejudice to his interest. The allegation of unauthorized demolition and new construction in the

Schedule A property by Respondent No.2 raises serious concerns regarding the preservation of the joint property. This conduct, if left unchecked, could irreparably alter the character of the property, complicating any potential partition. Moreover, the petitioner’s claim of interference with his possession of the first floor of Schedule A property and his proprietary business activities in Schedule B property is supported by credible evidence. The photographs (Ex.P3) showing ongoing construction activities and the legal notice (Ex.P4) issued to the respondents prior to the filing of the suit underscore the urgency of the matter.

IA No. 644/2025, 645/2025, 646/2025 & 660/2025 in O.S.No. 1623/2025..7 of 11..

9. These actions are not only unjustified but also appear to be intentional and damaging to the petitioner’s rights. At this stage, the Court need not resolve all factual disputes but must consider whether the petitioner’s claims present a legitimate and substantial issue to be adjudicated. The evidence on record, including the petitioner’s possession and business interests, prima facie establish a strong case for the issuance of a temporary injunction.

10. In addition to the prima facie case, the legal position regarding co-owners and injunctions is well settled. While it is true that a co-owner generally cannot exclude another co-owner, this principle does not apply where one co- owner is committing acts that prejudice the rights of the others, such as unauthorized construction, demolition, or interference with possession. The respondent’s argument that construction was undertaken with the consent of all co-owners lacks credibility, as no documentary evidence or clear proof has been presented to substantiate this claim. The petitioner has explicitly alleged that Respondent No.2’s actions have been taken without the consent of all co- owners and that they are prejudicing his share in the joint property. The fact that Respondent No.2 proceeded with demolition and construction activities, despite the petitioner’s repeated objections and the issuance of a legal notice (Ex.P4), strongly supports the petitioner’s claim that such actions are not only unauthorized but also unlawful. In light of these circumstances, the petitioner

IA No. 644/2025, 645/2025, 646/2025 & 660/2025 in O.S.No. 1623/2025..8 of 11..

is well within his rights to seek an injunction to prevent further damage to the joint property and interference with his lawful possession and business activities. The Court must protect the rights of the petitioner at this interlocutory stage to avoid causing irreparable harm that cannot be undone later.

11. With regard to balance of convenience, if the respondents are not restrained and are permitted to proceed with demolition or new construction, or to create third-party rights, the nature and character of the property may be altered, leading to complications in effecting partition. On the other hand, if an injunction is granted, the respondents would only be prevented from altering the existing condition of the property, and no irreparable prejudice would be caused to them as they continue to remain co-owners. Thus, the balance of convenience tilts in favour of maintaining status quo.

12. On the aspect of irreparable injury, any unauthorized construction, demolition, or alienation of joint property would result in changes that cannot be easily undone and may lead to multiplicity of proceedings. Similarly, interference with the petitioner’s possession and business activities would cause loss that may not be adequately compensated in monetary terms. Therefore, the petitioner has also established that he would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is refused.

IA No. 644/2025, 645/2025, 646/2025 & 660/2025 in O.S.No. 1623/2025..9 of 11..

13. The judgments cited by the respondents, namely Dalpat Kumar and others v. Prahlad Singh (1992) 1 SCC 719, and Babrubhan v. Surender Pal (CR No.

2034 of 2020), suggest that a co-owner cannot seek an injunction against another co-owner in the absence of an act of ouster or prejudice. However, this principle applies primarily where there are no acts of mismanagement or waste occurring in the joint property. In the present case, the petitioner has specifically alleged that unauthorized demolition, construction, and interference with his business are taking place, which, if true, are clear acts of prejudice and waste affecting the joint property. Therefore, the general rule cited by the respondents does not apply here, as the petitioner is not simply seeking a partition but is also attempting to prevent damage to the property and interference with his rights.

14. In The J. Rajendran Pillai v. Bhasi OP(C) 2487 of 2019, as cited by the petitioner, is more directly applicable. This case reinforces the principle that even among co-owners, one party can seek an injunction where the acts of the other co-owners are prejudicial to their rights, such as in cases of unauthorized construction or interference with possession. This principle aligns with the facts at hand, where the petitioner’s rights are clearly at risk due to the actions of the respondents, justifying the need for a temporary injunction.

IA No. 644/2025, 645/2025, 646/2025 & 660/2025 in O.S.No. 1623/2025..10 of 11..

In view of the above discussion, this Court holds that the petitioner is entitled to temporary injunctions. Accordingly, point is answered in favour of petitioners.

15. Point No.2

In the Result, petitions are allowed, granting temporary inujnctions,the respondents are restrained from:

(i) alienating or creating third-party interests in Schedule A and B properties;

(ii) demolishing existing structures or raising any new construction in Schedule

A property

(iii) interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the first floor portion of Schedule A property and

(iv) interfering with the petitioner’s proprietary business activities in Schedule

B property, until disposal of the suit. There shall be no order as to costs.

(Typed by me on my laptop, corrected in soft copy and pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 20th day of April, 2026.)

IV Senior Civil Judge, FAC of XVIII Addl. Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

IA No. 644/2025, 645/2025, 646/2025 & 660/2025 in O.S.No. 1623/2025..11 of 11..

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

- NONE -

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:

Ex.P1:Certified copy of Sale deed No. 740 of 1991, dated. 19.08.1991, along with original market value certificate and Encumbrance certificate

Ex.P2:Certified Copy of Sale Deed No. 273 of 2002, dated 07.03.2002 along with original market value certificate and Encumbrance certificate

Ex.P3:Original Positive photographs of Schedule A property and B property along with Pendrive.

Ex.P4:Office copy of Legal Notice dated: 01.12.2025 along with original postal receipt and acknowledgement card

FOR RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT: NIL

IV Senior Civil Judge, FAC of XVIII Addl. Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

IA No. 644/2025, 645/2025, 646/2025 & 660/2025 in O.S.No. 1623/2025..1 of 11..

IN THE COURT OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CITY CIVIL

COURT AT:: HYDERABAD

PRESENT: Smt. P. Devi Manasa, IV Senior Civil Judge, FAC XVIII Addl. Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court : Hyderabad.

DATED, THIS THE 20th DAY OF APRIL, 2026

I.A No.644 of 2025, 645 of 2025, 646 of 2025 & 660 of 2025 IN

O.S.No. 1623 of 2025

Between:-

Mohammed Zaki, Son of Late Mohd Anwar, aged about: 42 years. Occupation: Business, Resident of H.No.20-4-209/19. Near Standard School, Khilwat, Charminar Hyderabad-500002

.... Petitioner/Plaintiff

AND

1. Munawwar Sultana, wife of late Mohd. Anwar, Aged about: 62, Occupation: Household, Resident of H.No.20-4-209/19, Near Standard School, Khilwat, Charminar Hyderabad-500002.

2. Mohd. Sami, son of late Mohd. Anwar, Aged About: 43, Occupation: Business, Resident of H.No.20-4-209/19, Near Standard School, Khilwat, Charminar Hyderabad-500002.

3. Mohd. Altaf, son of late Mohd. Anwar, Aged about: 35, Occupation: Business, Resident of H.No.20-4-209/19, Near Standard School, Khilwat, Charminar Hyderabad-500002.

4. Mrs. Asma, wife of Syed. Khaisar, Aged about:40, Occupation: Household, Resident of H.No.20-4- 209/19, Near Standard School, Khilwat, Charminar, Hyderabad - 500002.

IA No. 644/2025, 645/2025, 646/2025 & 660/2025 in O.S.No. 1623/2025..2 of 11..

5. Mrs. Arshiya, wife of Mohd. Khaja, Aged about: 38, Occupation: Household, Resident of H.No. 20-4-209/19, Near Standard School, Khilwat, Charminar Hyderabad-500002.

6. Mrs. Asfiya Sultana, wife of Mohd. Altaf, Aged about: 28, Occupation: Household, Resident of H.No.20-4-209/19, Near Standard School, Khilwat, Charminar Hyderabad-500002.

7. Mrs. Shaista Sultana, wife of Mohd. Amir, Aged about:26 Years, Occupation: Household, Resident of H.No.20-4-209/19, Near Standard School, Khilwat, Charminar, Hyderabad-500002.

..Respondents/Defendants

This petition is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. Imran Mahmood, Counsel for the Petitioner/Plaintiff and Sri. G. Anirudh Reddy, Counsel for Respondent No.1/Defendant no.1 to Respondent/Defendant No.3, 5 to 7, Respondent/Defendant No.4 stood exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:-

- C O M M O N O R D E R -

1. These petitions are filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, The petitioner, has filed a suit seeking partition and separate possession of two properties (Schedule A and B) along with costs, submitting that he and

Respondents 1 to 7 (his mother and siblings) are the legal heirs of his father who died intestate in 2020. He submits that Schedule A property was solely owned by his father and is now jointly held by all heirs as per their respective

Sharia shares, while Schedule B property includes his father’s 1/4th share along with the petitioner’s own independent 1/4th share. Despite repeated requests for amicable partition, the respondents have delayed the process, and

IA No. 644/2025, 645/2025, 646/2025 & 660/2025 in O.S.No. 1623/2025..3 of 11..

Respondent No.2 has allegedly begun demolition and construction activities in

Schedule A property, causing damage and affecting the petitioner’s rights. The petitioner further submits that he is in possession of part of Schedule A and conducting his proprietary business in Schedule B property, but the respondents are interfering with his possession, business activities, and attempting to create third-party rights. After issuing a legal notice which went unheeded, he has approached the court seeking partition and a temporary injunctions to restrain the respondents from alienating, interfering with the properitary business in schedule B property, interfering with the peaceful possesion in first floor of Schedule A, and demolishing structure and raising from any additional construction until final disposal of the suit and hence prays to allow the petition.

2. Respondent No.4 went exparte, Respondents no 1 to 3,5 to 7 filed common counter,wherein The respondents, denied the petitioner’s allegations and contending that the petition is false, baseless, and filed with mala fide intention. While admitting the relationship between the parties, the death of

Late Mohd. Anwar, and the nature of Schedule A property along with the respective Sharia shares, the respondents assert that the petitioner has suppressed material facts, including omission of another property liable for

IA No. 644/2025, 645/2025, 646/2025 & 660/2025 in O.S.No. 1623/2025..4 of 11..

partition. They submit that Schedule B property is a joint property owned by the petitioner, his father, and Respondents 2 and 3, and therefore the petitioner, being a co-owner, cannot seek injunction against other co-owners.

The respondents deny allegations of illegal demolition, submitting instead that construction of a mulgi was collectively decided to generate income for

Respondent No.1, and that the petitioner is creating unnecessary obstruction.

They further contend that no ouster or harm has been caused to the petitioner, and that joint properties cannot be restrained or partitioned as claimed. The respondents also contend that the petitioner has no prima facie case, and that the balance of convenience lies in their favor as co-owners in possession.

Accordingly, they pray for dismissal of the petition with exemplary costs.

3. During inquiry petitioner got exhibited, Ex.P1 to P4 i.e. No documents are marked on behalf of respondents.

4. Now point for determination is:

1. Whether the petitioner has made out a case for grant of temporary injunctions against the respondents?

2. To what reliefs?

5. POINT No.1

IA No. 644/2025, 645/2025, 646/2025 & 660/2025 in O.S.No. 1623/2025..5 of 11..

The present petitions are filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking grant of temporary injunctions. The relief of temporary injunction is governed by well-settled principles, namely: (i) existence of a prima facie case, (ii) balance of convenience, and (iii) likelihood of irreparable injury to the petitioner in the absence of such relief. These three requirements must co-exist for granting an injunction.

6. At the outset, the relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The petitioner and Respondents 1 to 7 are admittedly the legal heirs of Late Mohd.

Anwar, who died intestate in the year 2020. It is also not in dispute that

Schedule A property originally belonged to the deceased and that the parties have succeeded to the same as co-owners in accordance with their respective shares under Mohammedan law. With regard to Schedule B property, though there is some dispute as to its exact nature, it is at least prima facie established that the petitioner has an independent share therein along with the share derived from his father.

7. The petitioner, in support of his claim, has relied upon Exs. P1 and P2, which are certified copies of registered sale deeds pertaining to Schedule A and B properties, along with market value and encumbrance certificates. These documents prima facie establish the title of the father of the petitioner over

Schedule A property and the existence of rights in Schedule B property. Ex.P3

IA No. 644/2025, 645/2025, 646/2025 & 660/2025 in O.S.No. 1623/2025..6 of 11..

photographs indicate that certain construction activity is ongoing, and Ex.P4 legal notice demonstrates that the petitioner had demanded partition and objected to the alleged acts of the respondents prior to filing of the suit.

Significantly, no documentary evidence has been produced on behalf of the respondents to substantiate their contentions.

8. The petitioner has made a compelling case for a prima facie right to seek the grant of a temporary injunction. The petitioner, as a co-owner of both the

Schedule A and Schedule B properties, has a clear right to seek partition and protect his share from any actions that may cause harm or prejudice to his interest. The allegation of unauthorized demolition and new construction in the

Schedule A property by Respondent No.2 raises serious concerns regarding the preservation of the joint property. This conduct, if left unchecked, could irreparably alter the character of the property, complicating any potential partition. Moreover, the petitioner’s claim of interference with his possession of the first floor of Schedule A property and his proprietary business activities in Schedule B property is supported by credible evidence. The photographs (Ex.P3) showing ongoing construction activities and the legal notice (Ex.P4) issued to the respondents prior to the filing of the suit underscore the urgency of the matter.

IA No. 644/2025, 645/2025, 646/2025 & 660/2025 in O.S.No. 1623/2025..7 of 11..

9. These actions are not only unjustified but also appear to be intentional and damaging to the petitioner’s rights. At this stage, the Court need not resolve all factual disputes but must consider whether the petitioner’s claims present a legitimate and substantial issue to be adjudicated. The evidence on record, including the petitioner’s possession and business interests, prima facie establish a strong case for the issuance of a temporary injunction.

10. In addition to the prima facie case, the legal position regarding co-owners and injunctions is well settled. While it is true that a co-owner generally cannot exclude another co-owner, this principle does not apply where one co- owner is committing acts that prejudice the rights of the others, such as unauthorized construction, demolition, or interference with possession. The respondent’s argument that construction was undertaken with the consent of all co-owners lacks credibility, as no documentary evidence or clear proof has been presented to substantiate this claim. The petitioner has explicitly alleged that Respondent No.2’s actions have been taken without the consent of all co- owners and that they are prejudicing his share in the joint property. The fact that Respondent No.2 proceeded with demolition and construction activities, despite the petitioner’s repeated objections and the issuance of a legal notice (Ex.P4), strongly supports the petitioner’s claim that such actions are not only unauthorized but also unlawful. In light of these circumstances, the petitioner

IA No. 644/2025, 645/2025, 646/2025 & 660/2025 in O.S.No. 1623/2025..8 of 11..

is well within his rights to seek an injunction to prevent further damage to the joint property and interference with his lawful possession and business activities. The Court must protect the rights of the petitioner at this interlocutory stage to avoid causing irreparable harm that cannot be undone later.

11. With regard to balance of convenience, if the respondents are not restrained and are permitted to proceed with demolition or new construction, or to create third-party rights, the nature and character of the property may be altered, leading to complications in effecting partition. On the other hand, if an injunction is granted, the respondents would only be prevented from altering the existing condition of the property, and no irreparable prejudice would be caused to them as they continue to remain co-owners. Thus, the balance of convenience tilts in favour of maintaining status quo.

12. On the aspect of irreparable injury, any unauthorized construction, demolition, or alienation of joint property would result in changes that cannot be easily undone and may lead to multiplicity of proceedings. Similarly, interference with the petitioner’s possession and business activities would cause loss that may not be adequately compensated in monetary terms. Therefore, the petitioner has also established that he would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is refused.

IA No. 644/2025, 645/2025, 646/2025 & 660/2025 in O.S.No. 1623/2025..9 of 11..

13. The judgments cited by the respondents, namely Dalpat Kumar and others v. Prahlad Singh (1992) 1 SCC 719, and Babrubhan v. Surender Pal (CR No.

2034 of 2020), suggest that a co-owner cannot seek an injunction against another co-owner in the absence of an act of ouster or prejudice. However, this principle applies primarily where there are no acts of mismanagement or waste occurring in the joint property. In the present case, the petitioner has specifically alleged that unauthorized demolition, construction, and interference with his business are taking place, which, if true, are clear acts of prejudice and waste affecting the joint property. Therefore, the general rule cited by the respondents does not apply here, as the petitioner is not simply seeking a partition but is also attempting to prevent damage to the property and interference with his rights.

14. In The J. Rajendran Pillai v. Bhasi OP(C) 2487 of 2019, as cited by the petitioner, is more directly applicable. This case reinforces the principle that even among co-owners, one party can seek an injunction where the acts of the other co-owners are prejudicial to their rights, such as in cases of unauthorized construction or interference with possession. This principle aligns with the facts at hand, where the petitioner’s rights are clearly at risk due to the actions of the respondents, justifying the need for a temporary injunction.

IA No. 644/2025, 645/2025, 646/2025 & 660/2025 in O.S.No. 1623/2025..10 of 11..

In view of the above discussion, this Court holds that the petitioner is entitled to temporary injunctions. Accordingly, point is answered in favour of petitioners.

15. Point No.2

In the Result, petitions are allowed, granting temporary inujnctions,the respondents are restrained from:

(i) alienating or creating third-party interests in Schedule A and B properties;

(ii) demolishing existing structures or raising any new construction in Schedule

A property

(iii) interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the first floor portion of Schedule A property and

(iv) interfering with the petitioner’s proprietary business activities in Schedule

B property, until disposal of the suit. There shall be no order as to costs.

(Typed by me on my laptop, corrected in soft copy and pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 20th day of April, 2026.)

IV Senior Civil Judge, FAC of XVIII Addl. Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

IA No. 644/2025, 645/2025, 646/2025 & 660/2025 in O.S.No. 1623/2025..11 of 11..

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

- NONE -

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:

Ex.P1:Certified copy of Sale deed No. 740 of 1991, dated. 19.08.1991, along with original market value certificate and Encumbrance certificate

Ex.P2:Certified Copy of Sale Deed No. 273 of 2002, dated 07.03.2002 along with original market value certificate and Encumbrance certificate

Ex.P3:Original Positive photographs of Schedule A property and B property along with Pendrive.

Ex.P4:Office copy of Legal Notice dated: 01.12.2025 along with original postal receipt and acknowledgement card

FOR RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT: NIL

IV Senior Civil Judge, FAC of XVIII Addl. Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

IA No. 644/2025, 645/2025, 646/2025 & 660/2025 in O.S.No. 1623/2025..1 of 11..

IN THE COURT OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CITY CIVIL

COURT AT:: HYDERABAD

PRESENT: Smt. P. Devi Manasa, IV Senior Civil Judge, FAC XVIII Addl. Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court : Hyderabad.

DATED, THIS THE 20th DAY OF APRIL, 2026

I.A No.644 of 2025, 645 of 2025, 646 of 2025 & 660 of 2025 IN

O.S.No. 1623 of 2025

Between:-

Mohammed Zaki, Son of Late Mohd Anwar, aged about: 42 years. Occupation: Business, Resident of H.No.20-4-209/19. Near Standard School, Khilwat, Charminar Hyderabad-500002

.... Petitioner/Plaintiff

AND

1. Munawwar Sultana, wife of late Mohd. Anwar, Aged about: 62, Occupation: Household, Resident of H.No.20-4-209/19, Near Standard School, Khilwat, Charminar Hyderabad-500002.

2. Mohd. Sami, son of late Mohd. Anwar, Aged About: 43, Occupation: Business, Resident of H.No.20-4-209/19, Near Standard School, Khilwat, Charminar Hyderabad-500002.

3. Mohd. Altaf, son of late Mohd. Anwar, Aged about: 35, Occupation: Business, Resident of H.No.20-4-209/19, Near Standard School, Khilwat, Charminar Hyderabad-500002.

4. Mrs. Asma, wife of Syed. Khaisar, Aged about:40, Occupation: Household, Resident of H.No.20-4- 209/19, Near Standard School, Khilwat, Charminar, Hyderabad - 500002.

IA No. 644/2025, 645/2025, 646/2025 & 660/2025 in O.S.No. 1623/2025..2 of 11..

5. Mrs. Arshiya, wife of Mohd. Khaja, Aged about: 38, Occupation: Household, Resident of H.No. 20-4-209/19, Near Standard School, Khilwat, Charminar Hyderabad-500002.

6. Mrs. Asfiya Sultana, wife of Mohd. Altaf, Aged about: 28, Occupation: Household, Resident of H.No.20-4-209/19, Near Standard School, Khilwat, Charminar Hyderabad-500002.

7. Mrs. Shaista Sultana, wife of Mohd. Amir, Aged about:26 Years, Occupation: Household, Resident of H.No.20-4-209/19, Near Standard School, Khilwat, Charminar, Hyderabad-500002.

..Respondents/Defendants

This petition is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. Imran Mahmood, Counsel for the Petitioner/Plaintiff and Sri. G. Anirudh Reddy, Counsel for Respondent No.1/Defendant no.1 to Respondent/Defendant No.3, 5 to 7, Respondent/Defendant No.4 stood exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:-

- C O M M O N O R D E R -

1. These petitions are filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, The petitioner, has filed a suit seeking partition and separate possession of two properties (Schedule A and B) along with costs, submitting that he and

Respondents 1 to 7 (his mother and siblings) are the legal heirs of his father who died intestate in 2020. He submits that Schedule A property was solely owned by his father and is now jointly held by all heirs as per their respective

Sharia shares, while Schedule B property includes his father’s 1/4th share along with the petitioner’s own independent 1/4th share. Despite repeated requests for amicable partition, the respondents have delayed the process, and

IA No. 644/2025, 645/2025, 646/2025 & 660/2025 in O.S.No. 1623/2025..3 of 11..

Respondent No.2 has allegedly begun demolition and construction activities in

Schedule A property, causing damage and affecting the petitioner’s rights. The petitioner further submits that he is in possession of part of Schedule A and conducting his proprietary business in Schedule B property, but the respondents are interfering with his possession, business activities, and attempting to create third-party rights. After issuing a legal notice which went unheeded, he has approached the court seeking partition and a temporary injunctions to restrain the respondents from alienating, interfering with the properitary business in schedule B property, interfering with the peaceful possesion in first floor of Schedule A, and demolishing structure and raising from any additional construction until final disposal of the suit and hence prays to allow the petition.

2. Respondent No.4 went exparte, Respondents no 1 to 3,5 to 7 filed common counter,wherein The respondents, denied the petitioner’s allegations and contending that the petition is false, baseless, and filed with mala fide intention. While admitting the relationship between the parties, the death of

Late Mohd. Anwar, and the nature of Schedule A property along with the respective Sharia shares, the respondents assert that the petitioner has suppressed material facts, including omission of another property liable for

IA No. 644/2025, 645/2025, 646/2025 & 660/2025 in O.S.No. 1623/2025..4 of 11..

partition. They submit that Schedule B property is a joint property owned by the petitioner, his father, and Respondents 2 and 3, and therefore the petitioner, being a co-owner, cannot seek injunction against other co-owners.

The respondents deny allegations of illegal demolition, submitting instead that construction of a mulgi was collectively decided to generate income for

Respondent No.1, and that the petitioner is creating unnecessary obstruction.

They further contend that no ouster or harm has been caused to the petitioner, and that joint properties cannot be restrained or partitioned as claimed. The respondents also contend that the petitioner has no prima facie case, and that the balance of convenience lies in their favor as co-owners in possession.

Accordingly, they pray for dismissal of the petition with exemplary costs.

3. During inquiry petitioner got exhibited, Ex.P1 to P4 i.e. No documents are marked on behalf of respondents.

4. Now point for determination is:

1. Whether the petitioner has made out a case for grant of temporary injunctions against the respondents?

2. To what reliefs?

5. POINT No.1

IA No. 644/2025, 645/2025, 646/2025 & 660/2025 in O.S.No. 1623/2025..5 of 11..

The present petitions are filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking grant of temporary injunctions. The relief of temporary injunction is governed by well-settled principles, namely: (i) existence of a prima facie case, (ii) balance of convenience, and (iii) likelihood of irreparable injury to the petitioner in the absence of such relief. These three requirements must co-exist for granting an injunction.

6. At the outset, the relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The petitioner and Respondents 1 to 7 are admittedly the legal heirs of Late Mohd.

Anwar, who died intestate in the year 2020. It is also not in dispute that

Schedule A property originally belonged to the deceased and that the parties have succeeded to the same as co-owners in accordance with their respective shares under Mohammedan law. With regard to Schedule B property, though there is some dispute as to its exact nature, it is at least prima facie established that the petitioner has an independent share therein along with the share derived from his father.

7. The petitioner, in support of his claim, has relied upon Exs. P1 and P2, which are certified copies of registered sale deeds pertaining to Schedule A and B properties, along with market value and encumbrance certificates. These documents prima facie establish the title of the father of the petitioner over

Schedule A property and the existence of rights in Schedule B property. Ex.P3

IA No. 644/2025, 645/2025, 646/2025 & 660/2025 in O.S.No. 1623/2025..6 of 11..

photographs indicate that certain construction activity is ongoing, and Ex.P4 legal notice demonstrates that the petitioner had demanded partition and objected to the alleged acts of the respondents prior to filing of the suit.

Significantly, no documentary evidence has been produced on behalf of the respondents to substantiate their contentions.

8. The petitioner has made a compelling case for a prima facie right to seek the grant of a temporary injunction. The petitioner, as a co-owner of both the

Schedule A and Schedule B properties, has a clear right to seek partition and protect his share from any actions that may cause harm or prejudice to his interest. The allegation of unauthorized demolition and new construction in the

Schedule A property by Respondent No.2 raises serious concerns regarding the preservation of the joint property. This conduct, if left unchecked, could irreparably alter the character of the property, complicating any potential partition. Moreover, the petitioner’s claim of interference with his possession of the first floor of Schedule A property and his proprietary business activities in Schedule B property is supported by credible evidence. The photographs (Ex.P3) showing ongoing construction activities and the legal notice (Ex.P4) issued to the respondents prior to the filing of the suit underscore the urgency of the matter.

IA No. 644/2025, 645/2025, 646/2025 & 660/2025 in O.S.No. 1623/2025..7 of 11..

9. These actions are not only unjustified but also appear to be intentional and damaging to the petitioner’s rights. At this stage, the Court need not resolve all factual disputes but must consider whether the petitioner’s claims present a legitimate and substantial issue to be adjudicated. The evidence on record, including the petitioner’s possession and business interests, prima facie establish a strong case for the issuance of a temporary injunction.

10. In addition to the prima facie case, the legal position regarding co-owners and injunctions is well settled. While it is true that a co-owner generally cannot exclude another co-owner, this principle does not apply where one co- owner is committing acts that prejudice the rights of the others, such as unauthorized construction, demolition, or interference with possession. The respondent’s argument that construction was undertaken with the consent of all co-owners lacks credibility, as no documentary evidence or clear proof has been presented to substantiate this claim. The petitioner has explicitly alleged that Respondent No.2’s actions have been taken without the consent of all co- owners and that they are prejudicing his share in the joint property. The fact that Respondent No.2 proceeded with demolition and construction activities, despite the petitioner’s repeated objections and the issuance of a legal notice (Ex.P4), strongly supports the petitioner’s claim that such actions are not only unauthorized but also unlawful. In light of these circumstances, the petitioner

IA No. 644/2025, 645/2025, 646/2025 & 660/2025 in O.S.No. 1623/2025..8 of 11..

is well within his rights to seek an injunction to prevent further damage to the joint property and interference with his lawful possession and business activities. The Court must protect the rights of the petitioner at this interlocutory stage to avoid causing irreparable harm that cannot be undone later.

11. With regard to balance of convenience, if the respondents are not restrained and are permitted to proceed with demolition or new construction, or to create third-party rights, the nature and character of the property may be altered, leading to complications in effecting partition. On the other hand, if an injunction is granted, the respondents would only be prevented from altering the existing condition of the property, and no irreparable prejudice would be caused to them as they continue to remain co-owners. Thus, the balance of convenience tilts in favour of maintaining status quo.

12. On the aspect of irreparable injury, any unauthorized construction, demolition, or alienation of joint property would result in changes that cannot be easily undone and may lead to multiplicity of proceedings. Similarly, interference with the petitioner’s possession and business activities would cause loss that may not be adequately compensated in monetary terms. Therefore, the petitioner has also established that he would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is refused.

IA No. 644/2025, 645/2025, 646/2025 & 660/2025 in O.S.No. 1623/2025..9 of 11..

13. The judgments cited by the respondents, namely Dalpat Kumar and others v. Prahlad Singh (1992) 1 SCC 719, and Babrubhan v. Surender Pal (CR No.

2034 of 2020), suggest that a co-owner cannot seek an injunction against another co-owner in the absence of an act of ouster or prejudice. However, this principle applies primarily where there are no acts of mismanagement or waste occurring in the joint property. In the present case, the petitioner has specifically alleged that unauthorized demolition, construction, and interference with his business are taking place, which, if true, are clear acts of prejudice and waste affecting the joint property. Therefore, the general rule cited by the respondents does not apply here, as the petitioner is not simply seeking a partition but is also attempting to prevent damage to the property and interference with his rights.

14. In The J. Rajendran Pillai v. Bhasi OP(C) 2487 of 2019, as cited by the petitioner, is more directly applicable. This case reinforces the principle that even among co-owners, one party can seek an injunction where the acts of the other co-owners are prejudicial to their rights, such as in cases of unauthorized construction or interference with possession. This principle aligns with the facts at hand, where the petitioner’s rights are clearly at risk due to the actions of the respondents, justifying the need for a temporary injunction.

IA No. 644/2025, 645/2025, 646/2025 & 660/2025 in O.S.No. 1623/2025..10 of 11..

In view of the above discussion, this Court holds that the petitioner is entitled to temporary injunctions. Accordingly, point is answered in favour of petitioners.

15. Point No.2

In the Result, petitions are allowed, granting temporary inujnctions,the respondents are restrained from:

(i) alienating or creating third-party interests in Schedule A and B properties;

(ii) demolishing existing structures or raising any new construction in Schedule

A property

(iii) interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the first floor portion of Schedule A property and

(iv) interfering with the petitioner’s proprietary business activities in Schedule

B property, until disposal of the suit. There shall be no order as to costs.

(Typed by me on my laptop, corrected in soft copy and pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 20th day of April, 2026.)

IV Senior Civil Judge, FAC of XVIII Addl. Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

IA No. 644/2025, 645/2025, 646/2025 & 660/2025 in O.S.No. 1623/2025..11 of 11..

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

- NONE -

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:

Ex.P1:Certified copy of Sale deed No. 740 of 1991, dated. 19.08.1991, along with original market value certificate and Encumbrance certificate

Ex.P2:Certified Copy of Sale Deed No. 273 of 2002, dated 07.03.2002 along with original market value certificate and Encumbrance certificate

Ex.P3:Original Positive photographs of Schedule A property and B property along with Pendrive.

Ex.P4:Office copy of Legal Notice dated: 01.12.2025 along with original postal receipt and acknowledgement card

FOR RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT: NIL

IV Senior Civil Judge, FAC of XVIII Addl. Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

O.S.No. 480 of 2021 Dated: 06.05.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE V SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT AT

HYDERABAD

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

SRI BATTULA RAMA RAO

V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad

O.S.No. 480 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

1. Sb. Smt. Shoukathunnisa Begum, W/o. Late Mir Mouzam Ali Khan, Muslim, aged about 57 years, Occ:Housewife, R/o. 3-5-143, Azam Manzil, King Kothi, Hyderabad.

2. Sb. Smt. Sadiqunnisa Begum, W/o. Anwar Alam Khan, D/o. Late Mir Mouzam Ali Khan, Muslim, aged about 42 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Barkatpura, Hyderabad.

3. Sb. Smt. Jameelunnisa Begum, W/o. Yamin Mustafa Moinuddin, D/o. Late Mir Mouzam Ali Khan, Muslim, aged about 40 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Toli Chowki, Hyderabad.

4. Mir Mustafa Ali Khan, S/o. Late Mir Mouzam Ali Khan, Muslim, aged about 40 years, Occ: Student, R/o. 3-5- 143, Azam Manzil, King Kothi, Hyderabad.

5. Arifunnisa Begum, D/o. Late Mir Mouzam Ali Khan, Muslim, aged about 32 years, Occ: Student, R/o. 3-5- 143, Azam Manzil, Kong Kothi, Hyderabad. Petitioners No.1 to 3 and 5 rep.by their GPA holder Mir Mustafa Ali Khan, S/o. Late Mir Mouzam Ali Khan, Muslim, aged about 40 years, Occ: Business, R/o. 3-5- 143, Azam Manzil, King Kothi, Hyderabad.

...PLAINTIFFS

AND

M/s. Pawan Motors, represented by its Proprietor Mr. Pawan Kumar, S/o. Mangal Chand, Hindu, aged about 58 years, Occ: Business carrying in Shop No.3-5-143/1, King Kothi, Hyderabad.

...DEFENDANT

Page 1 of 8

O.S.No. 480 of 2021 Dated: 06.05.2026

This suit is coming on 24.04.2026 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Y. Soma Srinath Reddy, counsel for the plaintiffs and of Sri Pawan Kumar Agarwal, counsel for the defendant; upon hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and that the arguments of the defendants was treated heard as there was no representation; upon considering the material available on record and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court deliver the following:- :: J U D G M E N T ::

1. This suit has been instituted by the plaintiffs against the defendant for eviction, recovery of arrear of rent to a tune of

Rs.19,24,459/- and also for future damages @ Rs.1,00,000/- per month.

2.Brief averments of plaint, in a nutshell, are that the plaintiffs are landlords of premises bearing No.3-5-143/1, admeasuring 356.57

Sq.yards, situated at King Kothi, Hyderabad, which is hereinafter to be referred as “suit schedule property”. The suit schedule property originally belongs to Mir Mouzam Ali Khan, who is husband of plaintiff

No.1 and father of plaintiffs No.2 to 5. The said Mir Mouzam Ali Khan died on 01.01.2011. The plaintiffs being the legal heirs have succeeded to the suit schedule property.

3.It is further alleged that the suit schedule property was obtained by the defendant from the deceased Mir Mouzam Ali Khan under a rental deed, dated 01.07.1987 on a monthly rent of Rs.800/- exclusive of electricity and property tax. After lapse of 11 months, it

Page 2 of 8

O.S.No. 480 of 2021 Dated: 06.05.2026

was renewed and a fresh lease deed, dated 27.06.1988 was executed on a rent of Rs.832/- per month and present rent is Rs.2,429/-.

4.It is further averred that the plaintiffs instituted a case vide

R.C.No.294/2012, on the file of the Court of III Additional Rent

Controller, Hyderabad for fixation of fair rent @ Rs.70,000/- per month. On contest, the Rent Controller had fixed the fair rent at

Rs.17,828.50 paise per month @ Rs.50/- per Sq.feet exclusive of electricity and municipal property tax with periodical enhancement of 10% for every two years. The said order has become final. Since the defendant failed to pay the rents, the plaintiffs issued notice of termination, dated 21.07.2021 terminating the tenancy of the defendant under Sec.106 of Transfer of Property Act calling upon the defendant to pay arrears of rent to a tune of Rs.18,73,748.78 paise for the period from 03.09.2012 to June, 2021 at different rates in respect of the suit schedule property. The defendant having received the notice failed to pay the rents. The defendant is continuing in the suit schedule property even after expiry of the notice period of termination, as such, the possession of the defendant in the premises will be that of a trespasser and it will be liable to pay damages @

Rs.25,000/- per month. The defendant has not paid the rent and holding over on month to month basis. The defendant is due an amount of Rs.19,24,459/- from 03.09.2012 to August 2021. The

Page 3 of 8

O.S.No. 480 of 2021 Dated: 06.05.2026

defendant did not pay the arrears of rent in spite of several requests and demands made by the plaintiffs. Having received the legal notice, the defendant neither paid the amount nor issued any reply.

The plaintiffs have validly terminated the tenancy of the defendant.

That the suit schedule property is located in very prime locality at

King Kothi and there is lot of demand for road facing shops and the schedule property is facing the road. Taking into consideration of the location and nature of constructions of the schedule property, it will fetch a rent of Rs.1,00,000/- per month. Hence the suit.

5. After registering the suit, summons was issued to the defendant. The defendant made his appearance through counsel and later he did not turn up to file written statement and contest the suit.

Hence, the right of defendant to file written statement is forfeited on 21.02.2022.

6. During trial, the plaintiffs got examined plaintiff No.4 as PW-1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-4. No oral or documentary evidence is evidence on behalf of the defendant.

7.Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs.

Despite giving opportunity, the defendant failed to advance arguments, hence treated as heard.

Page 4 of 8

O.S.No. 480 of 2021 Dated: 06.05.2026

8.Perused the material available on record.

POINT:

9. In order to prove their case, the plaintiff No.4 examined himself as PW-1. He reiterated in his chief-examination affidavit all the averments made in the plaint and produced documents under Exs.A-1 to A-4. Ex.A-1 is order in R.C.No. 294/2012, on the file of the Court of

III Addl. Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, Ex.A-2 is legal notice, Ex.A-3 is postal receipt and Ex.A-4 is postal track consignment.

10. As could be seen from Ex.A-1, the plaintiffs herein had filed

Rent Control Case vide R.C.No.294/2012 under Sec.4 of A.P. Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1950 for fixation of fair rent in respect of petition schedule property and enhancement of the rent.

In the said Rent Control, the defendant is not disputed the ownership of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. Therefore, there is no dispute with regard to jural relationship between the plaintiffs and defendant as landlords and tenant. It is the testimony of PW-1 that defendant is committed default in payment of rents and as such, the plaintiffs got issued legal notice under Ex.A-2. The intention of plaintiffs is to terminate the lease because the defendant defaulted in payment of rents. The contention of plaintiffs is that since the tenancy was terminated vide notice under Sec.106 of Transfer of Property Act,

Page 5 of 8

O.S.No. 480 of 2021 Dated: 06.05.2026

the occupation of defendant in suit schedule property is that of trespasser and the defendant is liable to pay damages to the plaintiff @ Rs.1,00,000/- per month. As the defendant remained ex parte, the evidence of PW-1 remains unchallenged. Hence, the unchallenged testimony of PW-1 coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-4 establishes that plaintiffs have terminated tenancy of defendant and defendant is liable to vacate the suit schedule property and pay the arrears of rent. So far as damages are concerned, the fair rent as fixed under

Ex.A-1 is Rs.28,710/- for the month of August, 2021. But the plaintiffs claimed damage @ Rs.1,00,000/- per month, which appears to be exorbitant. However, no evidence is adduced by plaintiffs to establish the damages sustained by them for illegal occupation of the suit schedule property, as such, the relief of damages for compensation cannot be granted. The point is answered accordingly.

11. IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs. The defendant is directed to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs within three (3) months from the date of judgment, failing which the plaintiffs are at liberty to get it done through due process of law. Further, the defendant is directed to pay an amount of Rs.19,24,459/- towards arrears of rent from

September 2014 to August, 2021. So far as mesne profits is concerned, the plaintiff is at liberty to file separate application for

Page 6 of 8

O.S.No. 480 of 2021 Dated: 06.05.2026

ascertaining the mesne profits/damages from the date of termination of tenancy till vacating the suit schedule property by the defendant.

Typed by me, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 6th day of May 2026. Digitally

BATHULA

signed by

RAMARAOBATHULA

RAMARAO

V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

On behalf of Plaintiffs

PW-1Mir Mustafa Ali Khan (plaintiff No.4)

On behalf of defendant

Nil

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFFS

Sl.No. Date of Description of Document

Document Ex.A-108.06.2018CC of order in RC. No.294 of 2012 on the file of court of III Addl. Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. Ex.A-221.07.2021Office copy of legal notice.

Ex.A-321.07.2021Postal receipt.

Ex.A-4Postal track consignment.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT

-:: Nil ::-

Page 7 of 8

O.S.No. 480 of 2021 Dated: 06.05.2026

Digitally BATHULAsigned by

RAMARAOBATHULA

RAMARAO

V Senior Civil Judge City Civil Court, Hyderabad

Page 8 of 8