Smt. K. Swapna Rani

Page No. 1 of 22OS. No.420 of 1996

 IN THE COURT OF THE III SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

CITY CIVIL COURT, AT SECUNDERABAD.

DATED THIS THE 22 nd DAY OF APRIL, 2024

PRESENT: SMT. K. SWAPNA RANI

III SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

OS. No.420 of 1996

Between:­

Mohd. Saleem, S/o Late Jalna Mahaboob, Aged about 72 years, Occ: Business, R/o. 11­3­209/3/2, Mahmoodguda, 

Secunderabad....Plaintiff

AND

1. J. Abdul Raheem (Died Per Lrs)

2. J. Md. Hameed, (Died Per LRs)

3. J. Mahmood, S/o J. Mahboob, Aged about 53 years, R/o 11­4­898, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad.

4. Md. Mushtaque, S/o. J. Md. Ishaque, R/o. 11­4­648, Jamoon Gallie, Five Galie, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad.

5. Md. Afroze, S/o J. Md. Ishaque, Aged 35 years, R/o 11­4­648, Jamoon Gallie, Five Galie, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad.

6. Mrs. Zubeda Begum (Died)

7. Mrs. Hafeeza Begum, D/o J. Md. Ishaque, R/o. 11­4­648, Jamoon Gallie, Five Galie, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad.

8. Mrs. Alia Begum, D/o. J. Md. Ishaque, R/o 11­4­648, Jamoon Gallie, Five Galie, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad.

Page No. 2 of 22OS. No.420 of 1996

9. Mrs. Arshiya Begum, D/o. J. Md. Ishaque, R/o. 11­4­648, Jamoon Gallie, Five Galie, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad.

10. Mrs. Shazani Begum, W/o. J .Md. Ishaque, R/o. 11­4­648, Jamoon Gallie, Five Galie, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad.

11. Mrs. Shakira Begum, D/o. Mrs. Ameena Begum, W/o. Md. Muneer, R/o. Behind Chaderghat Nala, Chaderghat, Hyderabad.

12. Mrs. Zaibunnisa Begum, D/o. Mr. J. Mahboob, W/o. Md. Kazim, R/o. 17­3­806/1, Yakuthpura, Hyderabad.

13. Smt. Choti Bee (Died)

14. Mrs. Haseena Begum, W/o. late Hameed, R/o. 6­2­367/368, Bhoiguda, Secunderabad.

15. Asif Miya, S/o. Late Md. Hameed, R/o. 6­2­367/368, Bhoiguda, Secunderabad.

16. Majid Miya, S/o. Late Md. Hameed, R/o. 6­2­367/368, Bhoiguda, Secunderabad.

17. Shana Begum, D/o. Late Md. Hameed, R/o. 6­2­367/368, Bhoiguda, Secunderabad.

18. Safeena Begum, D/o. Late Md. Hameed, R/o. 6­2­367/368, Bhoiguda, Secunderabad.

19. Shaheena Begum, D/o. Late Md. Hameed, R/o. 6­2­367/368, Bhoiguda, Secunderabad.

20. Mahraj Begum, D/o. Late Md. Hameed, R/o. 6­2­367/368, Bhoiguda, Secunderabad.

21. Farheen Begum, D/o. Late Md. Hameed, R/o. 6­2­367/368, Bhoiguda, Secunderabad

Page No. 3 of 22OS. No.420 of 1996

22. J. Mohd. Ahmed, S/o. Late J. Abdul Raheem, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.11­1­750, Galib Manzil, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad.

23. J. Mohd. Aleem, S/o. Late J. Abdul Raheem, Aged about 48 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.11­4­898, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad.

24. J. Mohd. Basheer, S/o. Late J. Abdul Raheem, Aged about 46 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.11­4­898, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad.

25. J. Mohd. Nazeer, S/o. Late J. Abdul Raheem, Aged about 44 years, Occ: Business, R/o. 11­1­750 Galib Manzil, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad.

26. J. Mohd. Siraj, S/o Late J. Abdul Raheem, Aged about 42 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.11­624/17/20/1, NTR nagar, Line No.1, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad.

27. Smt. Tayabba, D/o. Late J. Abdul Raheem, Aged about 40 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No.11­1­750, Galib Manzil, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad. (Defendant No. 22 to 27 are the LRs of Defendant No.1 added as per Orders in I.A.No. 471/2023 dated 07­08­2023) ...Defendatns

This suit is coming on this day before me for final disposal in the presence of Sri Wasim Ahmed Khan, learned Advocate for the plaintiff.

Defendants No.1, 2, 6 & 13 died and of Sri Aarifa Imran Khan, learned

Advocate for the defendants No.3 to 5, 7 to 9and of

Sri Mohd. Nasrullah Khan, learned Advocate for the defendant No.11 and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

Page No. 4 of 22OS. No.420 of 1996

//J U D G M E N T//

1.Before traversing into the facts of the case, it is pertinent to mention why this suit is coming up for disposal after long time from the date of its institution.

Initially, this court after hearing both sides dismissed the suit on 27.07.2005.

Thereafter, the plaintiff filed CCCA No.75 of 2006 before Hon'ble High Court and on contest, Hon'ble High Court allowed the appeal by Judgment dt.12.12.2012.

The operative part of the Judgment is as under:

“Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, acceptance of the plea of custom is not valid. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the appellant contents that even after the alleged adoption, he along with other defendants have alienated the property belonging to his natural father on 14­12­73. Therefore, according to

Defendants the Plaintiff has no right in the property of the natural Father.

Furthermore, the court has not given any finding that by virtue of the customary adoption, the right to succeed to the property of the father has been taken away.

According to learned counsel for the respondents, in order to defeat the right of the plaintiff from the adoptive father, there should be confirmation in writing about the transfer of the property and in the absence of it he cannot get any right in the properties of the adoptive father. All these factors have to be properly proved by evidence. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the judgment of the court below is set aside and the matter is remanded to the lower court for giving fresh

Page No. 5 of 22OS. No.420 of 1996 opportunity to both the parties to adduce fresh evidence with regard to the proof of customary adoption and also the consequences of such customary adoption to decide as to whether the succession to the natural family has been lost or not. The appellant can also adduce evidence with regard to the above alienation by all the family which is now sought to be contested. Hence, the court below is directed to dispose of the case within six months. The record should be sent to the lower court by 31.12.2012, no costs”.

2.In pursuance of the directions of Hon'ble High Court, this Court issued notices to both the counsel as well as parties to the suit and posted the matter for additional evidence on either side. PW1 was recalled and Ex.A3 copy of registered sale deed dt.14.12.1973 was marked by the plaintiff to establish the fact that while selling another Mathruka property of Jalna Mahboob Saheb, the plaintiff was added as vendor No.6 in the said sale deed. However, on behalf of defendants, none of them were examined after the above remand, except DW2 who is a member of Quraish Community and not a party to the suit. Ex.B1 and

B2 documents were marked by defendants through plaintiff to show that plaintiff sold some of the property of his adoptive father Jalna Mahammod Yaseen Saab. 

3.This Court after perusing the entire material on record found that no evidence or authority was placed by the defendants that the plaintiff who went

Page No. 6 of 22OS. No.420 of 1996 in adoption has lost the right of succession in the family of his father Jalna

Mahboob Saheb. This Court thereby decreed the suit by allotting 2/15th share to the plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property by preliminary decree dt.29.11.2013.

4.Aggrieved by the Preliminary decree, Appeal was preferred again, but this time by the defendants vide CCCA No.90 of 2014 before Hon'ble High Court. It is vide orders dt.16.06.2022, Hon'ble High Court remanded the suit once again for fresh disposal permitting the plaintiff to implead the legal representatives of deceased defendant No.1. The operative portion of the Order dt.16.06.2022 is as under:

“The Lower Court is directed to afford the opportunity of hearing to all the parties and to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible within six months from the date of receipt of the judgment. In view of the above, the judgment and decree under appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded once again to the trial court for fresh adjudication and the plaintiff shall take steps to include the legal representatives of the deceased Defendant No.1 and the trial court shall afford opportunity of hearing to all the parties and conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this judgment”.

Page No. 7 of 22OS. No.420 of 1996

5.It is pertinent to mention that the Hon'ble High Court while remanding the suit for the second time vide Order dt.16.06.2022 in CCA No.90 of 2014 observed as follows:

"As a preliminary submission, Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants informs the Court that on remand, the legal heirs of the deceased 1st defendant were not impleaded as defendants and no notice and opportunity was given to them. Therefore, the Judgment and decree is liable to be set aside on that sole ground.

6.The Hon'ble High Court further observed that the parties be given the liberty to lead fresh evidence with regard to proof of custom and also consequences of such customary adoption and directed to decide as to whether the right of succession to natural family has been lost or not . Further, the legal heirs of 1st defendant were entitled to lead evidence, if so required. They are also entitled to be given opportunity of hearing.

7.Whereas, on perusal of record it is noticed that the Legal representatives of defendant No.1 did not appear and were set exparte and neither of the

parties led any fresh evidence with regard to proof of custom and also

consequences of such customary adoption. However, both plaintiff and defendant have filed written submission and relied upon case law in support of their respective contentions.

Page No. 8 of 22OS. No.420 of 1996

FACTS OF THE CASE :

8.The brief facts of the case are that plaintiff is the son of late Jalna

Mahboob Saheb who died leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 13 as his only surviving legal heirs to succeed to the Mathruka left behind by him i.e., suit schedule property admeasuring 530 Sq. yards situated at Chilkalguda,

Secunderabad.

9.The plaintiff pleaded that defendants No.1 to 3, plaintiff himself and defendants No.12 and 13 are the sons and daughters of late Mahaboob Saheb and defendants No.4 to 10 are the sons, daughters and widow of late J. N.

Ishaqet, deceased son of J. Mahaboob Saheb and defendant No.11 is only daughter of late Mrs. Ameena Bee, deceased daughter of J. Mahaboob Saheb.

Thus, the plaintiff and defendants are each entitled to share the suit schedule property. 

10.The plaintiff alleged that he has been requesting defendants No.1, 2, 3 & 10 to partition the suit schedule property according to Hanafi law of inheritance and the defendants have been avoiding to partition the same according to Hanafi

Law of inheritance. The defendants No.1 to 3 & 10 flatly refused to give any share to the plaintiff on 01.11.1996. When the plaintiff finally asked them to give the share of the plaintiff after taking into the account the paltry sums of

Page No. 9 of 22OS. No.420 of 1996

Rs.300/­ every month paid by late defendant No.10 to plaintiff out of the

Mathruka left by late J. Mahaboob Saheb, then the defendant No.10 stated that if the plaintiff demands for partition, she would not give even that paltry sum of

Rs.300/­ being paid by her to the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff filed the suit seeking partition of suit schedule property.

11.Defendants No.1 to 4 filed written statement denying the plaint averments and stated that plaintiff has mis described himself. He is not son of Late Jalna

Mahaboob Saheb as claimed by the plaintiff. Plaintiff is described as son of Late

Jalna Mohd. Yaseen Saab in the marriage invitation card, school certificate as well as in the previous voters’ list. He had also got publication made in the

Deccan Chronicle while selling away the property at Regimental Bazar,

Secunderabad describing him as son of Yaseen Saab. Therefore, the plaintiff claiming himself as son of Late Jalna Mahaboob Saheb is totally incorrect and the same is claimed for the purpose of the suit.

12.In the written statement it is further pleaded that Jalna Yaseen Saab had no issues through his wife Smt. Aziznussia. Therefore, Jalna Yaseen Saab and his wife took the plaintiff in adoption when the plaintiff is at the age of one month.

Though, Mohammedan Law does not recognize adoption, there is custom of adoption and it is given priority over legislation and general Mohammedan Law.

Page No. 10 of 22OS. No.420 of 1996

In all the records, the plaintiff is described as son of Jalna Yaseen Saab and not as son of Jalna Mahaboob Saheb. Therefore, in the description of the plaintiff is totally misleading. Plaintiff cannot claim himself to be the son of Jalna

Mahaboob Saheb.

13.In respect of limitation, the Defendants denied that the plaintiff was requesting the defendants to partition the suit schedule property; that he was collecting a sum of Rs.300/­ every month, and that defendant No.10 stated that she would stop payment of Rs.300/­ being paid to the plaintiff from the rents derived from the property. It is stated that no payment was made to the plaintiff at any point of time; that if at all there was any right over the property, the claim for partition of the property is barred for limitation, and that with a view to put forth a false claim, the plaintiff has recently got his fathers’ name changed in the voters list. Further, when the plaintiff sold the property of his adoptive father

Yaseen Saab, he described himself of Son of Yaseen Saab and the plaintiff is living in the house which is purchased by him from the sale proceeds of the house standing in the name of adoptive father Yaseen Saab. Stating so, defendants No.1 to pleaded to dismiss the suit.

Page No. 11 of 22OS. No.420 of 1996

14. Originally this court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the suit schedule property is liable for partition into 15 

shares and if so, whether the plaintiff is entitled for allotment of 

2/15th share as prayed for?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a preliminary decree as prayed for?

3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

4. To what relief?

15.This Court while deciding the case on 29.11.2013 after the suit was remanded for the first time, did not frame any additional issues. But, fresh evidence was recorded and only PW1 was recalled and Ex.A2 copy of registered sale deed dt.14.12.1973 was marked by the plaintiff. Further, DW2 was examined on behalf of defendants and Ex.B1 and B2 documents were marked by defendant through plaintiff. 

16.Now both parties have not adduced any fresh evidence and as discussed above, the legal representatives of defendant No.1 remained exparte. 

Page No. 12 of 22OS. No.420 of 1996

17.On perusal of record it is noticed that this Court while dismissing the suit initially on 27.07.2005 found that there is existence of a valid custom regarding adoption of plaintiff. When there is such a custom in the family, the plaintiff not only enjoyed the status of the real son in the family of Jalna Yaseen Saab, but also deprived monetary advantage by the sale of immovable property belonging to his adoptive father, the plaintiff is not entitled to share in the Mathruka property of Jalna Mahaboob Saheb/natural father. It is further observed by the

Court that the plaintiff is estopped by his own conduct from claiming a share in the Mathruka of his real father. Observing as above, this Court held that Ex.A1

Fatwa has only persuasive value and does not help the plaintiff as all the necessary facts were not narrated therein. For the above reasons, this Court declined to partition the suit schedule property.

18.The above being the finding of this Court in Judgment dt.27.07.2005, later when the matter was remanded vide order dt.12.12.2012 in CCCA No.71 of 2006, this Court after recording additional evidence gave certain findings and the relevant findings are as under:

19.“Defendant in order to prove custom of adoption among their families who belong to Muslim religion examined DW2 and also cross examined PW1 on such aspect. Evidence of DW2 goes to show that custom of adoption is prevalent in

Page No. 13 of 22OS. No.420 of 1996 their community and also several persons were given in adoption.­­­­ In fact, plaintiff himself admitted in his evidence that he was given in adoption to Jalna

Yaseen Saheb.­­­­ Admission is best piece of evidence. So with the evidence of

DW2 and cross examination of PW1 defendant could prove that plaintiff is adopted by Jalna Yaseen Saheb and as such there is custom of adoption among the families of plaintiff and defendants”.

20.The Court also referred to the decisions i.e., AIR 1977 Jammu and

Kashmir 44 and Zatium Begum vs. Secretary, Forest and others, AIR 1984

Madras 7 relied upon by defendants in support of their claim that custom of adoption is prevalent among certain classes of Mohammedans. The Court observed that it was held in the above said decisions that Mohammedan law does not recognize adoption. However, where a special family or tribal custom of adoption is proved, the adoption can be done. The Court further observed that by placing reliance of above said decisions defendants could establish that adoptive son has share in the properties of his adoptive father.

21.In respect of right of succession to the biological family, the Court observed that a perusal of material appearing on record shows that no mention is made that by adoption of plaintiff right of succession in the natural family has been lost. That, no evidence or authority could be placed by the defendant that

Page No. 14 of 22OS. No.420 of 1996 plaintiff who went in adoption had lost his right of succession in the family of

Jalna Mahabbob Saheb. That, though plaintiff was recognized as a son of Jalna

Yaseen Saab in the school certificates, Marriage invitation card, voters list, that will not dis entitle him to claim share in the natural family. So the plaintiff is entitled to 2/15th share in the suit schedule property.

22.In respect of limitation, in both the Judgments dt.27.07.2005 and 29.11.2013, this Court held that no evidence whatsoever is adduced by the defendants and the issue was not argued on behalf of defendants to prove that claim of plaintiff is barred by limitation.

23.The above being the finding of this Court in the Judgments dt.27.07.2005 and 29.11.2013, now the issues have to be determined afresh basing on the material available on record (sine no fresh evidence is led by either parties though given liberty by Hon’ble High Court while remanding the suit for fresh disposal).

24.ISSUES No.1 & 2 : The plaintiff who was examined as PW1 reiterated the plaint averments in his chief examination. When examined in cross, PW1 stated that when his father sold the property under Ex.A3 sale deed he was asked to sign the sale deed. He denied that merely by signing the sale deed he would

Page No. 15 of 22OS. No.420 of 1996 never get any right over the property of Jalna Mahaboob Saheb. Ex.A3 is the sale deed through which the plaintiff along with defendants jointly alienated a property of their father Jalna Mahaboob Saheb. Learned counsel for plaintiff submitted that despite the so called adoption, the defendants have added the plaintiff as vendor No.6 in Ex.A3 sale deed. The other two dockets are Ex.A1 &

A2. Ex.A1 is Fathwa in Urdu dt.20.03.1990 along with English translation. Ex.A2 is the Birth certificate of plaintiff. Ex.B1 & B2 are confronted to PW1 in cross examination. Ex.B1 is certified copy of sale deed bearing Document No.1485/87.

Ex.B2 is certified copy of sale deed bearing Document No.1898/87.

25.The DW1/defendant No.2 also reiterated the averments of written statement in his chief examination. When examined in cross, he admitted that there is no law of adoption in Muslims; that the plaintiff is his own brother. 

25(a). The DW2/third party to the suit stated that plaintiff has got right in the properties of his natural father. As per Shariat there is no practice of adoption. Even if adoption takes place the person who is adopted has got every right in property of original father. Further, there is no document regarding adoption in Quraishi Community.

Page No. 16 of 22OS. No.420 of 1996

26.The above being the oral and documentary evidence of parties, now this

Court will examine the decisions relied upon by either parties.

26(a). Learned counsel for defendants relied on decisions reported in

1967 SCC online SC 75, Sawan Ram vs. M. S. T. Kalavathi and others

wherein Hon’ble Apex Court decided the rights of adopted children in Hindu religion. This decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the parties herein are not Hindus. 

27.The other decision relied upon by defendants is in Anumolu Nageswara

Rao and A. B. R. L. Narasimha Rao, Letters Patent Appeal No.204 of 2001 rendered by our Hon’ble High Court. But this decision is also pertaining to adopted children among Hindus. Hence, this decision is not of any help for the defendants.

28.The above being the case law relied upon by the defendants, the following decisions are relied upon by the plaintiff in support of his contention that the onus shifts to defendants to establish their case and that adverse inference has to be drawn against a party for not examining important witness since the defendants have not examined any of the defendants in support of their case. 

Page No. 17 of 22OS. No.420 of 1996

29.In respect of adoption, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India delivered land mark Judgment in Shabnam Hashmi Vs. Union of India and others, AIR 2014

SC 1281, that any person can adopt a child under Juvenile justice (Care and

Protection of Children) Act, 2000 irrespective of religion he or she follows even if the personal laws of the particular religion does not permit it. In the instant case, it is the case of the plaintiff that Muslim Law does not recognize adoption.

However, this Court vide Judgment dt.29.11.2013 gave finding that PW1 admitted that there is custom of adoption if the person adopting does not have children, and the admission is best piece of evidence. Further, with the evidence of DW2 and cross examination of PW1 defendants could prove that plaintiff is adopted by Jalna Yaseen Saab and as such there is custom of adoption among the families of plaintiff and defendants.

30.There is no general law for adoption in India for Muslims. It is permitted amongst Hindus on the basis of customs and usage. Adoption is an important aspect of personal law. Muslims have no adoption laws, but India being equality promoting country, the Muslim couples can approach the court under Guardians and wards Act, 1890. The Islamic Jurisprudence do not provide for adoption.

Muslim couples can adopt a child under foster care only. As soon as the child’s foster care age is completed the existence of adoption remains no more.

Page No. 18 of 22OS. No.420 of 1996

31.In the case on hand, admittedly plaintiff was adopted by Jalna Mohd.

Yaseen Saab. It is discussed by this Court in the earlier Judgment of this Court dt.29.11.2013 that the decisions relied on by defendants in AIR 1977 Jammu and Kashmir 44 and Zatiun Begum vs. Secretary, Forests and others AIR 1984 Madras 7support the claim of the defendants that custom of Adoption is prevalent among certain classes of Mohammedans. In view of admissions made by PW1 and the case law relied on by the defendants, this Court even now believes that there was a custom of adoption prevalent among the class to which plaintiff and defendants belong to. 

32.Now, it has to be seen whether the adopted son loses his right of succession in his Biological family. Normally, if a child is legally adopted, he/she will have the same rights to his father's property as the biological offspring.

However, according to the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, the

adopted child will have no legal right to his biological parents' self­acquired

or coparcenary property. But, in humble view of this Court there is no law depriving an adopted son of his right of succession in his Biological family among Mohammedans. 

33.Islam does not recognize adoption. As has been held in Mohammed

Allahbad Khan vs, Mohammed Ismail, there is nothing in the Mohammedan

Page No. 19 of 22OS. No.420 of 1996 law similar to adoption as recognized in the Hindu system. Acknowledgement of paternity under Muslim Law is the nearest approach to adoption. The material difference between the two can be stated that in adoption, the adoptee is the known son of another person, while one of the essentials of an acknowledgment is that the acknowledgee must not be known son of another. However, an adoption can take place from an orphanage by obtaining permission from Court under the Guardians and Wards Act. 

34.In Akbar Rather vs. Azizi, 4 J&K LR 264 it was held that ordinarily the parties are Governed by their personal law and that only exceptions are those in which one or the other party proves successfully that the personal law is abrogated by such customs as are found to be prevailing in the valley.

35.In Mst. Khatooni Vs. Lassa and others, AIR 1959 J & K 52 it was held that a drastic custom which seriously derogates from the personal law of the parties cannot be lightly inferred or held to exist, where a custom is not so well established as to have the force of law. It will have to be specifically pleaded and established if it is alleged in any particular case.

36.The practical implications of the above decisions are that all the rules which applied between blood relatives are still valid, and that an adopted child

Page No. 20 of 22OS. No.420 of 1996 cannot marry his legal siblings and so also he or she is eligible for inheritance from real parents. In the instant case, though the parties are given liberty to lead fresh evidence with regard to proof of custom and consequences of such customary adoption, the defendants did not avail the opportunity of leading any fresh evidence to establish the consequences of customary adoption. The entire material on record does not establish that plaintiff lost his right of succession in his Biological family. 

37.In view of above discussion, this Court holds that the defendants failed to plead and establish that the custom of adoption prevalent among the class of

Mohammedans to which the parties belong to has the force of law and it abrogates the personal law and that by virtue of the custom of adoption prevalent among the class which they belong to, the plaintiff lost his right of succession in the Biological family. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to 2/15th share in the suit schedule property of his Biological Father. The issues are answered in affirmative. 

38.ISSUE No.3 : In respect of limitation, as has been held in both the

Judgments dt. 27.07.2005 and 29.11.2013, this Court finds that no evidence whatsoever is adduced by the defendants and no argument is advanced in respect of the issue that the suit is barred by limitation. Nevertheless, the

Page No. 21 of 22OS. No.420 of 1996 plaintiff categorically pleaded that he has been requesting the defendants to partition the suit schedule property by the defendants flatly refused and on 01.11.1996 the plaintiff finally demanded the defendants to divide the suit schedule property and as such the suit which is instituted on 10.12.1996 is very much within limitation. As discussed above, no evidence is placed by the defendants to disprove the pleading of limitation. The issue is answered accordingly.

39.ISSUE No.4 : In view of discussion under above issues, plaintiff is entitled for preliminary decree of partition. The issue is answered accordingly.

In the result, the suit is Preliminarily decreed with costs and the suit schedule property is divided into 15 shares and the plaintiff is entitled to 2/15th share therein. 

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22nd day of April, 2024. 

III SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, SECUNDERABAD.

Page No. 22 of 22OS. No.420 of 1996

 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW1: Md. SaleemDW1: Jalana Mohd. Hameed

PW2: Mohd. IshaqDW2: Mohammed Ilyas

EXHIBITS MARKED

ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF :

Ex.A1 is the Fathwa in Urdu dt.20.03.1990 along with English translation. Ex.A2 is the Birth certificate. Ex.A3 is the Certified copy of registered sale deed, dt.14.12.1973 with translation.

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS :

Ex.B1 is the certified copy of document No.1485/1987. Ex.B2 is the certified copy of document No. 1898/1987.

III SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, SECUNDERABAD.

Page No. 1 of 22OS. No.420 of 1996

 IN THE COURT OF THE III SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

CITY CIVIL COURT, AT SECUNDERABAD.

DATED THIS THE 22 nd DAY OF APRIL, 2024

PRESENT: SMT. K. SWAPNA RANI

III SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

OS. No.420 of 1996

Between:­

Mohd. Saleem, S/o Late Jalna Mahaboob, Aged about 72 years, Occ: Business, R/o. 11­3­209/3/2, Mahmoodguda, 

Secunderabad....Plaintiff

AND

1. J. Abdul Raheem (Died Per Lrs)

2. J. Md. Hameed, (Died Per LRs)

3. J. Mahmood, S/o J. Mahboob, Aged about 53 years, R/o 11­4­898, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad.

4. Md. Mushtaque, S/o. J. Md. Ishaque, R/o. 11­4­648, Jamoon Gallie, Five Galie, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad.

5. Md. Afroze, S/o J. Md. Ishaque, Aged 35 years, R/o 11­4­648, Jamoon Gallie, Five Galie, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad.

6. Mrs. Zubeda Begum (Died)

7. Mrs. Hafeeza Begum, D/o J. Md. Ishaque, R/o. 11­4­648, Jamoon Gallie, Five Galie, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad.

8. Mrs. Alia Begum, D/o. J. Md. Ishaque, R/o 11­4­648, Jamoon Gallie, Five Galie, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad.

Page No. 2 of 22OS. No.420 of 1996

9. Mrs. Arshiya Begum, D/o. J. Md. Ishaque, R/o. 11­4­648, Jamoon Gallie, Five Galie, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad.

10. Mrs. Shazani Begum, W/o. J .Md. Ishaque, R/o. 11­4­648, Jamoon Gallie, Five Galie, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad.

11. Mrs. Shakira Begum, D/o. Mrs. Ameena Begum, W/o. Md. Muneer, R/o. Behind Chaderghat Nala, Chaderghat, Hyderabad.

12. Mrs. Zaibunnisa Begum, D/o. Mr. J. Mahboob, W/o. Md. Kazim, R/o. 17­3­806/1, Yakuthpura, Hyderabad.

13. Smt. Choti Bee (Died)

14. Mrs. Haseena Begum, W/o. late Hameed, R/o. 6­2­367/368, Bhoiguda, Secunderabad.

15. Asif Miya, S/o. Late Md. Hameed, R/o. 6­2­367/368, Bhoiguda, Secunderabad.

16. Majid Miya, S/o. Late Md. Hameed, R/o. 6­2­367/368, Bhoiguda, Secunderabad.

17. Shana Begum, D/o. Late Md. Hameed, R/o. 6­2­367/368, Bhoiguda, Secunderabad.

18. Safeena Begum, D/o. Late Md. Hameed, R/o. 6­2­367/368, Bhoiguda, Secunderabad.

19. Shaheena Begum, D/o. Late Md. Hameed, R/o. 6­2­367/368, Bhoiguda, Secunderabad.

20. Mahraj Begum, D/o. Late Md. Hameed, R/o. 6­2­367/368, Bhoiguda, Secunderabad.

21. Farheen Begum, D/o. Late Md. Hameed, R/o. 6­2­367/368, Bhoiguda, Secunderabad

Page No. 3 of 22OS. No.420 of 1996

22. J. Mohd. Ahmed, S/o. Late J. Abdul Raheem, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.11­1­750, Galib Manzil, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad.

23. J. Mohd. Aleem, S/o. Late J. Abdul Raheem, Aged about 48 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.11­4­898, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad.

24. J. Mohd. Basheer, S/o. Late J. Abdul Raheem, Aged about 46 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.11­4­898, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad.

25. J. Mohd. Nazeer, S/o. Late J. Abdul Raheem, Aged about 44 years, Occ: Business, R/o. 11­1­750 Galib Manzil, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad.

26. J. Mohd. Siraj, S/o Late J. Abdul Raheem, Aged about 42 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.11­624/17/20/1, NTR nagar, Line No.1, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad.

27. Smt. Tayabba, D/o. Late J. Abdul Raheem, Aged about 40 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No.11­1­750, Galib Manzil, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad. (Defendant No. 22 to 27 are the LRs of Defendant No.1 added as per Orders in I.A.No. 471/2023 dated 07­08­2023) ...Defendatns

This suit is coming on this day before me for final disposal in the presence of Sri Wasim Ahmed Khan, learned Advocate for the plaintiff.

Defendants No.1, 2, 6 & 13 died and of Sri Aarifa Imran Khan, learned

Advocate for the defendants No.3 to 5, 7 to 9and of

Sri Mohd. Nasrullah Khan, learned Advocate for the defendant No.11 and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

Page No. 4 of 22OS. No.420 of 1996

//J U D G M E N T//

1.Before traversing into the facts of the case, it is pertinent to mention why this suit is coming up for disposal after long time from the date of its institution.

Initially, this court after hearing both sides dismissed the suit on 27.07.2005.

Thereafter, the plaintiff filed CCCA No.75 of 2006 before Hon'ble High Court and on contest, Hon'ble High Court allowed the appeal by Judgment dt.12.12.2012.

The operative part of the Judgment is as under:

“Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, acceptance of the plea of custom is not valid. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the appellant contents that even after the alleged adoption, he along with other defendants have alienated the property belonging to his natural father on 14­12­73. Therefore, according to

Defendants the Plaintiff has no right in the property of the natural Father.

Furthermore, the court has not given any finding that by virtue of the customary adoption, the right to succeed to the property of the father has been taken away.

According to learned counsel for the respondents, in order to defeat the right of the plaintiff from the adoptive father, there should be confirmation in writing about the transfer of the property and in the absence of it he cannot get any right in the properties of the adoptive father. All these factors have to be properly proved by evidence. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the judgment of the court below is set aside and the matter is remanded to the lower court for giving fresh

Page No. 5 of 22OS. No.420 of 1996 opportunity to both the parties to adduce fresh evidence with regard to the proof of customary adoption and also the consequences of such customary adoption to decide as to whether the succession to the natural family has been lost or not. The appellant can also adduce evidence with regard to the above alienation by all the family which is now sought to be contested. Hence, the court below is directed to dispose of the case within six months. The record should be sent to the lower court by 31.12.2012, no costs”.

2.In pursuance of the directions of Hon'ble High Court, this Court issued notices to both the counsel as well as parties to the suit and posted the matter for additional evidence on either side. PW1 was recalled and Ex.A3 copy of registered sale deed dt.14.12.1973 was marked by the plaintiff to establish the fact that while selling another Mathruka property of Jalna Mahboob Saheb, the plaintiff was added as vendor No.6 in the said sale deed. However, on behalf of defendants, none of them were examined after the above remand, except DW2 who is a member of Quraish Community and not a party to the suit. Ex.B1 and

B2 documents were marked by defendants through plaintiff to show that plaintiff sold some of the property of his adoptive father Jalna Mahammod Yaseen Saab. 

3.This Court after perusing the entire material on record found that no evidence or authority was placed by the defendants that the plaintiff who went

Page No. 6 of 22OS. No.420 of 1996 in adoption has lost the right of succession in the family of his father Jalna

Mahboob Saheb. This Court thereby decreed the suit by allotting 2/15th share to the plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property by preliminary decree dt.29.11.2013.

4.Aggrieved by the Preliminary decree, Appeal was preferred again, but this time by the defendants vide CCCA No.90 of 2014 before Hon'ble High Court. It is vide orders dt.16.06.2022, Hon'ble High Court remanded the suit once again for fresh disposal permitting the plaintiff to implead the legal representatives of deceased defendant No.1. The operative portion of the Order dt.16.06.2022 is as under:

“The Lower Court is directed to afford the opportunity of hearing to all the parties and to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible within six months from the date of receipt of the judgment. In view of the above, the judgment and decree under appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded once again to the trial court for fresh adjudication and the plaintiff shall take steps to include the legal representatives of the deceased Defendant No.1 and the trial court shall afford opportunity of hearing to all the parties and conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this judgment”.

Page No. 7 of 22OS. No.420 of 1996

5.It is pertinent to mention that the Hon'ble High Court while remanding the suit for the second time vide Order dt.16.06.2022 in CCA No.90 of 2014 observed as follows:

"As a preliminary submission, Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants informs the Court that on remand, the legal heirs of the deceased 1st defendant were not impleaded as defendants and no notice and opportunity was given to them. Therefore, the Judgment and decree is liable to be set aside on that sole ground.

6.The Hon'ble High Court further observed that the parties be given the liberty to lead fresh evidence with regard to proof of custom and also consequences of such customary adoption and directed to decide as to whether the right of succession to natural family has been lost or not . Further, the legal heirs of 1st defendant were entitled to lead evidence, if so required. They are also entitled to be given opportunity of hearing.

7.Whereas, on perusal of record it is noticed that the Legal representatives of defendant No.1 did not appear and were set exparte and neither of the

parties led any fresh evidence with regard to proof of custom and also

consequences of such customary adoption. However, both plaintiff and defendant have filed written submission and relied upon case law in support of their respective contentions.

Page No. 8 of 22OS. No.420 of 1996

FACTS OF THE CASE :

8.The brief facts of the case are that plaintiff is the son of late Jalna

Mahboob Saheb who died leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 13 as his only surviving legal heirs to succeed to the Mathruka left behind by him i.e., suit schedule property admeasuring 530 Sq. yards situated at Chilkalguda,

Secunderabad.

9.The plaintiff pleaded that defendants No.1 to 3, plaintiff himself and defendants No.12 and 13 are the sons and daughters of late Mahaboob Saheb and defendants No.4 to 10 are the sons, daughters and widow of late J. N.

Ishaqet, deceased son of J. Mahaboob Saheb and defendant No.11 is only daughter of late Mrs. Ameena Bee, deceased daughter of J. Mahaboob Saheb.

Thus, the plaintiff and defendants are each entitled to share the suit schedule property. 

10.The plaintiff alleged that he has been requesting defendants No.1, 2, 3 & 10 to partition the suit schedule property according to Hanafi law of inheritance and the defendants have been avoiding to partition the same according to Hanafi

Law of inheritance. The defendants No.1 to 3 & 10 flatly refused to give any share to the plaintiff on 01.11.1996. When the plaintiff finally asked them to give the share of the plaintiff after taking into the account the paltry sums of

Page No. 9 of 22OS. No.420 of 1996

Rs.300/­ every month paid by late defendant No.10 to plaintiff out of the

Mathruka left by late J. Mahaboob Saheb, then the defendant No.10 stated that if the plaintiff demands for partition, she would not give even that paltry sum of

Rs.300/­ being paid by her to the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff filed the suit seeking partition of suit schedule property.

11.Defendants No.1 to 4 filed written statement denying the plaint averments and stated that plaintiff has mis described himself. He is not son of Late Jalna

Mahaboob Saheb as claimed by the plaintiff. Plaintiff is described as son of Late

Jalna Mohd. Yaseen Saab in the marriage invitation card, school certificate as well as in the previous voters’ list. He had also got publication made in the

Deccan Chronicle while selling away the property at Regimental Bazar,

Secunderabad describing him as son of Yaseen Saab. Therefore, the plaintiff claiming himself as son of Late Jalna Mahaboob Saheb is totally incorrect and the same is claimed for the purpose of the suit.

12.In the written statement it is further pleaded that Jalna Yaseen Saab had no issues through his wife Smt. Aziznussia. Therefore, Jalna Yaseen Saab and his wife took the plaintiff in adoption when the plaintiff is at the age of one month.

Though, Mohammedan Law does not recognize adoption, there is custom of adoption and it is given priority over legislation and general Mohammedan Law.

Page No. 10 of 22OS. No.420 of 1996

In all the records, the plaintiff is described as son of Jalna Yaseen Saab and not as son of Jalna Mahaboob Saheb. Therefore, in the description of the plaintiff is totally misleading. Plaintiff cannot claim himself to be the son of Jalna

Mahaboob Saheb.

13.In respect of limitation, the Defendants denied that the plaintiff was requesting the defendants to partition the suit schedule property; that he was collecting a sum of Rs.300/­ every month, and that defendant No.10 stated that she would stop payment of Rs.300/­ being paid to the plaintiff from the rents derived from the property. It is stated that no payment was made to the plaintiff at any point of time; that if at all there was any right over the property, the claim for partition of the property is barred for limitation, and that with a view to put forth a false claim, the plaintiff has recently got his fathers’ name changed in the voters list. Further, when the plaintiff sold the property of his adoptive father

Yaseen Saab, he described himself of Son of Yaseen Saab and the plaintiff is living in the house which is purchased by him from the sale proceeds of the house standing in the name of adoptive father Yaseen Saab. Stating so, defendants No.1 to pleaded to dismiss the suit.

Page No. 11 of 22OS. No.420 of 1996

14. Originally this court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the suit schedule property is liable for partition into 15 

shares and if so, whether the plaintiff is entitled for allotment of 

2/15th share as prayed for?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a preliminary decree as prayed for?

3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

4. To what relief?

15.This Court while deciding the case on 29.11.2013 after the suit was remanded for the first time, did not frame any additional issues. But, fresh evidence was recorded and only PW1 was recalled and Ex.A2 copy of registered sale deed dt.14.12.1973 was marked by the plaintiff. Further, DW2 was examined on behalf of defendants and Ex.B1 and B2 documents were marked by defendant through plaintiff. 

16.Now both parties have not adduced any fresh evidence and as discussed above, the legal representatives of defendant No.1 remained exparte. 

Page No. 12 of 22OS. No.420 of 1996

17.On perusal of record it is noticed that this Court while dismissing the suit initially on 27.07.2005 found that there is existence of a valid custom regarding adoption of plaintiff. When there is such a custom in the family, the plaintiff not only enjoyed the status of the real son in the family of Jalna Yaseen Saab, but also deprived monetary advantage by the sale of immovable property belonging to his adoptive father, the plaintiff is not entitled to share in the Mathruka property of Jalna Mahaboob Saheb/natural father. It is further observed by the

Court that the plaintiff is estopped by his own conduct from claiming a share in the Mathruka of his real father. Observing as above, this Court held that Ex.A1

Fatwa has only persuasive value and does not help the plaintiff as all the necessary facts were not narrated therein. For the above reasons, this Court declined to partition the suit schedule property.

18.The above being the finding of this Court in Judgment dt.27.07.2005, later when the matter was remanded vide order dt.12.12.2012 in CCCA No.71 of 2006, this Court after recording additional evidence gave certain findings and the relevant findings are as under:

19.“Defendant in order to prove custom of adoption among their families who belong to Muslim religion examined DW2 and also cross examined PW1 on such aspect. Evidence of DW2 goes to show that custom of adoption is prevalent in

Page No. 13 of 22OS. No.420 of 1996 their community and also several persons were given in adoption.­­­­ In fact, plaintiff himself admitted in his evidence that he was given in adoption to Jalna

Yaseen Saheb.­­­­ Admission is best piece of evidence. So with the evidence of

DW2 and cross examination of PW1 defendant could prove that plaintiff is adopted by Jalna Yaseen Saheb and as such there is custom of adoption among the families of plaintiff and defendants”.

20.The Court also referred to the decisions i.e., AIR 1977 Jammu and

Kashmir 44 and Zatium Begum vs. Secretary, Forest and others, AIR 1984

Madras 7 relied upon by defendants in support of their claim that custom of adoption is prevalent among certain classes of Mohammedans. The Court observed that it was held in the above said decisions that Mohammedan law does not recognize adoption. However, where a special family or tribal custom of adoption is proved, the adoption can be done. The Court further observed that by placing reliance of above said decisions defendants could establish that adoptive son has share in the properties of his adoptive father.

21.In respect of right of succession to the biological family, the Court observed that a perusal of material appearing on record shows that no mention is made that by adoption of plaintiff right of succession in the natural family has been lost. That, no evidence or authority could be placed by the defendant that

Page No. 14 of 22OS. No.420 of 1996 plaintiff who went in adoption had lost his right of succession in the family of

Jalna Mahabbob Saheb. That, though plaintiff was recognized as a son of Jalna

Yaseen Saab in the school certificates, Marriage invitation card, voters list, that will not dis entitle him to claim share in the natural family. So the plaintiff is entitled to 2/15th share in the suit schedule property.

22.In respect of limitation, in both the Judgments dt.27.07.2005 and 29.11.2013, this Court held that no evidence whatsoever is adduced by the defendants and the issue was not argued on behalf of defendants to prove that claim of plaintiff is barred by limitation.

23.The above being the finding of this Court in the Judgments dt.27.07.2005 and 29.11.2013, now the issues have to be determined afresh basing on the material available on record (sine no fresh evidence is led by either parties though given liberty by Hon’ble High Court while remanding the suit for fresh disposal).

24.ISSUES No.1 & 2 : The plaintiff who was examined as PW1 reiterated the plaint averments in his chief examination. When examined in cross, PW1 stated that when his father sold the property under Ex.A3 sale deed he was asked to sign the sale deed. He denied that merely by signing the sale deed he would

Page No. 15 of 22OS. No.420 of 1996 never get any right over the property of Jalna Mahaboob Saheb. Ex.A3 is the sale deed through which the plaintiff along with defendants jointly alienated a property of their father Jalna Mahaboob Saheb. Learned counsel for plaintiff submitted that despite the so called adoption, the defendants have added the plaintiff as vendor No.6 in Ex.A3 sale deed. The other two dockets are Ex.A1 &

A2. Ex.A1 is Fathwa in Urdu dt.20.03.1990 along with English translation. Ex.A2 is the Birth certificate of plaintiff. Ex.B1 & B2 are confronted to PW1 in cross examination. Ex.B1 is certified copy of sale deed bearing Document No.1485/87.

Ex.B2 is certified copy of sale deed bearing Document No.1898/87.

25.The DW1/defendant No.2 also reiterated the averments of written statement in his chief examination. When examined in cross, he admitted that there is no law of adoption in Muslims; that the plaintiff is his own brother. 

25(a). The DW2/third party to the suit stated that plaintiff has got right in the properties of his natural father. As per Shariat there is no practice of adoption. Even if adoption takes place the person who is adopted has got every right in property of original father. Further, there is no document regarding adoption in Quraishi Community.

Page No. 16 of 22OS. No.420 of 1996

26.The above being the oral and documentary evidence of parties, now this

Court will examine the decisions relied upon by either parties.

26(a). Learned counsel for defendants relied on decisions reported in

1967 SCC online SC 75, Sawan Ram vs. M. S. T. Kalavathi and others

wherein Hon’ble Apex Court decided the rights of adopted children in Hindu religion. This decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the parties herein are not Hindus. 

27.The other decision relied upon by defendants is in Anumolu Nageswara

Rao and A. B. R. L. Narasimha Rao, Letters Patent Appeal No.204 of 2001 rendered by our Hon’ble High Court. But this decision is also pertaining to adopted children among Hindus. Hence, this decision is not of any help for the defendants.

28.The above being the case law relied upon by the defendants, the following decisions are relied upon by the plaintiff in support of his contention that the onus shifts to defendants to establish their case and that adverse inference has to be drawn against a party for not examining important witness since the defendants have not examined any of the defendants in support of their case. 

Page No. 17 of 22OS. No.420 of 1996

29.In respect of adoption, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India delivered land mark Judgment in Shabnam Hashmi Vs. Union of India and others, AIR 2014

SC 1281, that any person can adopt a child under Juvenile justice (Care and

Protection of Children) Act, 2000 irrespective of religion he or she follows even if the personal laws of the particular religion does not permit it. In the instant case, it is the case of the plaintiff that Muslim Law does not recognize adoption.

However, this Court vide Judgment dt.29.11.2013 gave finding that PW1 admitted that there is custom of adoption if the person adopting does not have children, and the admission is best piece of evidence. Further, with the evidence of DW2 and cross examination of PW1 defendants could prove that plaintiff is adopted by Jalna Yaseen Saab and as such there is custom of adoption among the families of plaintiff and defendants.

30.There is no general law for adoption in India for Muslims. It is permitted amongst Hindus on the basis of customs and usage. Adoption is an important aspect of personal law. Muslims have no adoption laws, but India being equality promoting country, the Muslim couples can approach the court under Guardians and wards Act, 1890. The Islamic Jurisprudence do not provide for adoption.

Muslim couples can adopt a child under foster care only. As soon as the child’s foster care age is completed the existence of adoption remains no more.

Page No. 18 of 22OS. No.420 of 1996

31.In the case on hand, admittedly plaintiff was adopted by Jalna Mohd.

Yaseen Saab. It is discussed by this Court in the earlier Judgment of this Court dt.29.11.2013 that the decisions relied on by defendants in AIR 1977 Jammu and Kashmir 44 and Zatiun Begum vs. Secretary, Forests and others AIR 1984 Madras 7support the claim of the defendants that custom of Adoption is prevalent among certain classes of Mohammedans. In view of admissions made by PW1 and the case law relied on by the defendants, this Court even now believes that there was a custom of adoption prevalent among the class to which plaintiff and defendants belong to. 

32.Now, it has to be seen whether the adopted son loses his right of succession in his Biological family. Normally, if a child is legally adopted, he/she will have the same rights to his father's property as the biological offspring.

However, according to the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, the

adopted child will have no legal right to his biological parents' self­acquired

or coparcenary property. But, in humble view of this Court there is no law depriving an adopted son of his right of succession in his Biological family among Mohammedans. 

33.Islam does not recognize adoption. As has been held in Mohammed

Allahbad Khan vs, Mohammed Ismail, there is nothing in the Mohammedan

Page No. 19 of 22OS. No.420 of 1996 law similar to adoption as recognized in the Hindu system. Acknowledgement of paternity under Muslim Law is the nearest approach to adoption. The material difference between the two can be stated that in adoption, the adoptee is the known son of another person, while one of the essentials of an acknowledgment is that the acknowledgee must not be known son of another. However, an adoption can take place from an orphanage by obtaining permission from Court under the Guardians and Wards Act. 

34.In Akbar Rather vs. Azizi, 4 J&K LR 264 it was held that ordinarily the parties are Governed by their personal law and that only exceptions are those in which one or the other party proves successfully that the personal law is abrogated by such customs as are found to be prevailing in the valley.

35.In Mst. Khatooni Vs. Lassa and others, AIR 1959 J & K 52 it was held that a drastic custom which seriously derogates from the personal law of the parties cannot be lightly inferred or held to exist, where a custom is not so well established as to have the force of law. It will have to be specifically pleaded and established if it is alleged in any particular case.

36.The practical implications of the above decisions are that all the rules which applied between blood relatives are still valid, and that an adopted child

Page No. 20 of 22OS. No.420 of 1996 cannot marry his legal siblings and so also he or she is eligible for inheritance from real parents. In the instant case, though the parties are given liberty to lead fresh evidence with regard to proof of custom and consequences of such customary adoption, the defendants did not avail the opportunity of leading any fresh evidence to establish the consequences of customary adoption. The entire material on record does not establish that plaintiff lost his right of succession in his Biological family. 

37.In view of above discussion, this Court holds that the defendants failed to plead and establish that the custom of adoption prevalent among the class of

Mohammedans to which the parties belong to has the force of law and it abrogates the personal law and that by virtue of the custom of adoption prevalent among the class which they belong to, the plaintiff lost his right of succession in the Biological family. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to 2/15th share in the suit schedule property of his Biological Father. The issues are answered in affirmative. 

38.ISSUE No.3 : In respect of limitation, as has been held in both the

Judgments dt. 27.07.2005 and 29.11.2013, this Court finds that no evidence whatsoever is adduced by the defendants and no argument is advanced in respect of the issue that the suit is barred by limitation. Nevertheless, the

Page No. 21 of 22OS. No.420 of 1996 plaintiff categorically pleaded that he has been requesting the defendants to partition the suit schedule property by the defendants flatly refused and on 01.11.1996 the plaintiff finally demanded the defendants to divide the suit schedule property and as such the suit which is instituted on 10.12.1996 is very much within limitation. As discussed above, no evidence is placed by the defendants to disprove the pleading of limitation. The issue is answered accordingly.

39.ISSUE No.4 : In view of discussion under above issues, plaintiff is entitled for preliminary decree of partition. The issue is answered accordingly.

In the result, the suit is Preliminarily decreed with costs and the suit schedule property is divided into 15 shares and the plaintiff is entitled to 2/15th share therein. 

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22nd day of April, 2024. 

III SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, SECUNDERABAD.

Page No. 22 of 22OS. No.420 of 1996

 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW1: Md. SaleemDW1: Jalana Mohd. Hameed

PW2: Mohd. IshaqDW2: Mohammed Ilyas

EXHIBITS MARKED

ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF :

Ex.A1 is the Fathwa in Urdu dt.20.03.1990 along with English translation. Ex.A2 is the Birth certificate. Ex.A3 is the Certified copy of registered sale deed, dt.14.12.1973 with translation.

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS :

Ex.B1 is the certified copy of document No.1485/1987. Ex.B2 is the certified copy of document No. 1898/1987.

III SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, SECUNDERABAD.

1 of 10 O.S. No. 127 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE XIX ADDL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, AT SECUNDERABAD.

DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF APRIL, 2024

PRESENT: SMT. K. SWAPNA RANI

III SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

FAC XIX ADDL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

O.S. No. 127 of 2023

Between:

Pullala Raju, S/o. Late. Pullala Rajaiah, Aged about 57 years, Occ: Pvt Employee, R/o. H.No. 10-5-816/1, Nandanar Nagar, North Lalaguda, Tukaramgate, Secunderabad.…Plaintiff.

And

1. GHMC, Rep by The Deputy Commissioner, GHMC, Circle No. 29, Secunderabad, Office at Marredpally, Secunderabad.

2. All Concerned.…Defendants.

This Suit is coming on this day before me for final disposal in the presence of

Sri. E. Ramesh, the learned Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri. R. Sudhakar, the standing counsel for Defendant No.1 filed vakalat but did not appear later and set Exparte and Defendant No. 2 being All concerned, the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:- 2 of 10 O.S. No. 127 of 2023 // J U D G M E N T //

The suit is filed by plaintiff seeking to declare the plaintiff as the absolute owner and possessor in respect of property house bearing Municipal No.

10-5-816/1, admeasuring 267 Sq. yards, plinth area 1152 sq. feet, in plot No. 99,

Survey No. 844/13 situated at Nandanar Nagar, North Lalaguda, Tukaramgate,

Secunderabad (PIT No. 1181010839), (suit schedule property) by virtue of Will dated. 30.3.2021.

1. The brief averments of the case are that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the property house bearing Municipal No. 10-5-816/1, admeasuring 267 Sq yards, plinth area 1152 Sq.feet, in Plot No.99, Survey No.

844/13, situated at Nandanar Nagar, North Lalaguda, Tukaramgate,

Secunderabad, (PTI No.1181010839), by virtue of WILL executed by his aunty by name Late. Smt. Muthyala Kalavathy, W/o. Late Janapatla Ramchander (J. Ramchander) dated 30-3-2021 in the presence of two witnesses, here in after referred as the Suit Schedule Property.

2. Plaintiff stated that Smt. M. Kalavathy was the younger sister of plaintiff's mother, she got married with Late J. Ramchander, out of their wedlock no children. Originally J. Ramchander was a South Central Railway Employee, during his life time he purchased an open Plot No.99 admeasuring 267 Sq.yards 3 of 10 O.S. No. 127 of 2023 through registered Sale Deed vide Doc.No.644 of 1985, dated 11-3-1985 from his vendor B. Boyanna Veera Swamy. That late J. Ramchander obtained

Construction Permission and constructed a ground floor vide Permit No.169/29

TP of 1987, dated 13-10-1987 from defendant No.1 (erstwhile Commissioner

Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad), as per Sanction Plan construction was completed by obtaining Loan from South Central Railway by executing

Registered Mortgaged Deed, vide Doc. No.358 of 1988, dated 17-2-1988. That

J.Ramchander during his life time he was repaid entire loan and obtained

Registered Reconveyance Deed vide Doc. No. 310 of 1998, dated 20-2-1998.

3. It is stated that Late. Sri. J. Ramchander and Smt. Kalavathy were brought the plaintiff at the age of 10 years who is the son of elder sister of

Smt. Kalavathy, provided good education and all necessities and performed his marriage. That the plaintiff and his wife are residing in the suit schedule property and out of their wedlock blessed with daughter all of them are residing in the suit schedule property even now and enjoying the possession of the suit schedule property peacefully without any obstruction from anybody.

4. Plaintiff further stated that Sri. J. Ramchander was died on 20-4-2019 intestate leaving behind his wife Smt. Kalavathy alone as his legal heir and successor in respect of his estate, after his death Smt. Kalavathy and plaintiff 4 of 10 O.S. No. 127 of 2023 including his family members are residing in the suit schedule property. Plaintiff performed J. Ramchander's last rituals as son and taken care of Smt. Kalavathy as own mother, and the plaintiff performed his duties towards J. Ramchander and Kalavathy as son, out of love and affection. That Late Smt. Kalavathy executed a Will on 30-3-2021 bequeathing the suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff, subsequently Smt. Kalavathy died on 14-6-2023, the plaintiff performed last rituals of Smt. Kalavathy as son, after her death said Will was acted upon, by virtue of Will the plaintiff become an absolute owner and possessor in respect of suit schedule property.

5. Plaintiff pleaded that he is regularly paying the charges/bills for statutory payments like Electricity, Water and Property Tax before concerned authorities, after death of Smt. Kalavathy. That on 11-7-2023 the plaintiff approached the defendant No.1, disclosed his identity and all concerned documents including

WILL dated 30-3-2021 and requested to mutate his name in the Municipal

Record, but defendant No.1 refused to do so and advised him to get any court order for Mutation in respect of suit schedule property on his name, like wise

Electricity and Water works department also refused to Mutate the plaintiff's name in their records. Hence the suit.

5 of 10 O.S. No. 127 of 2023

6. Sri. R. Sudhakar, the standing counsel for GHMC filed vakalat, but did not appear after filing vakalat, hence defendant No. 1 was set exparte and publication in respect of defendant No.2 (All Concerned) issued, but no objections are received.

7. Plaintiff is examined as PW1. Exs.A1 to A16 are marked.

8. Heard learned counsel for plaintiff.

9. Now the point is “Whether the plaintiff can be declared as the absolute owner and possessor in respect of property house bearing Municipal No. 10-5-816/1, admeasuring 267 Sq. yards, plinth area 1152 sq. feet, in plot No. 99, Survey No.

844/13 situated at Nandanar Nagar, North Lalaguda, Tukaramgate,

Secunderabad (PIT No. 1181010839), (suit schedule property) by virtue of Will dated. 30.3.2021 as prayed for”?

10. POINT: Plaintiff himself is examined as PW1. He reiterated the averments of the plaint in his chief examination and exhibited the documents i.e., Exs. A1 to

A16. Ex. A1 is the original Notarized Will, dated: 30-03-2021, Ex.A2. is the

Certified Copy of Death Certificate of Late. Smt. Kalavathy, dated: 10-07-2023,

Ex.A3. is the Certified Copy of Death Certificate of Late. J. Ramchander, dated:

20-04-2019, Ex.A4. is the Certified Copy of Sale deed Doc. No 644/1985 English translation, dated:11-03-1985, Ex.A5 is the Certified Copy of Mortgaged Deed 6 of 10 O.S. No. 127 of 2023

Doc. No.358 of 1988, dated:17-02-1988, Ex.A6 is the Original Reconveyance

Deed, Doc. No.310 of 1988, dated:20-2-1998, Ex.A7. is the Original Market

Value Certificate, dated:25-7-2023, Ex.A8 is the Original Pan Cards (2 Nos)

Aadhaar Cards (2No's), Ex.A9. is the Original Property Tax payment Receipt,

dated: 12-4–2021, Ex.A10 is the Original Water Bills, 3 No's, dated:21-10-2022,

Ex.A11 is the Original Electricity Bills, 3 No's, dated 5-7-2023, Ex.A12. Is the

Original Photographs (6 No's) with CD, Ex.A13 is the Original Aadhaar Card of the Plaintiff, Ex.A14. Original Voter I.D. Card of Plaintiff's Daughter, dated. 5-7- 2017, Ex.A15 is the Original GHMC Approved Plan, dated. 13-10-1987, Ex.A16 is the Certified Copy of Encumbrance Certificate, dated. 24-7- 2023 respectively.

11. The plaintiff examined the attestor to the Ex. A1 Will as PW2. PW2 stated that he and the husband of the testatrix Smt. Kalavathy worked together in

Railway Department. He supported the version of the plaintiff stating that plaintiff was brought up by Smt. Kalavathy and her husband and that plaintiff discharged all duties as a son till their last breath that Smt. Kalavathy executed

Will dated 3.3.2021 bequeathing Suit Schedule Property in favour of plaintiff in his presence and that he signed as an attestor and The Ex.A1 on 30.3.2021.

7 of 10 O.S. No. 127 of 2023

12. The oral evidence of PW1 and PW2 coupled with documentary evidence under Ex.A1 to A16 establish that the husband of Smt. Kalavathy was the original owner as he purchased the land under suit schedule property vide

Ex.A4 Sale Deed and constructed house therein. That he also mogaged the property vide Ex.A5 Mogage Deed and the same was reconveyed to him vide

Ex.A6 Reconveyance Deed after repayment of entire loan amount by him. That since Smt. Kalavathy and her husband J. Ramchander were issueless, Smt.

Kalavathy alone succeeded to suit schedule property after the death of her husband on 20.4.2019. Thereafter, Smt. Kalavathy executed Ex.A1 Notarised

Will bequeathing suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff. Ex.A1 Will is proved by examining PW2 who is one of the attestors to the Will.

13. It is the case of the plaintiff that authorities concerned have refused to mutate the name of the plaintiff in Municipal Records. But no evidence is produced to establish such refusal on the part of authorities concerned. Thus the plaintiff is seeking the direction to the defendant No. 1/GHMC to mutate his name in the muncipal records and also seeking to declare him as absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule properyt by virtue of Will Ex.A1 Will.

In so far as relief that plaintiff be declared as absolute owner of the suit schedule property is concerned, this court opines that there is no title dispute 8 of 10 O.S. No. 127 of 2023 herein and that it is not also peladed by the plaintiff that either any person as required underction 34 of specific relief act or the defendant No.1/GHMC have deniedhistitletothesuitscheduleproperty.

The plaintiff has only pleaded refusal by the defendant No.1 to mutate his name in the municipal records. This refusal cannot be treated as denial of title of plaintiff. It appears that since Smt. G. Kalavathy without having any registered Title Deed in her favour executed Notarised Will in favour of plaintiff who is not her natural son, authorities concerned might have doubted the relationship of plaintiff with the testatrix Smt. G. Kalavathy which led the plaintiff to file the suit herein. As discussed above, Ex.A4 Will is in favour of plaintiff and no one have disputed the said Will. The defendant No. 1/GHMC did not contest the suit having entered appearance. Thus when the title is not denied and such denial is not proved against the defendant No. 1, the relief of declaration of titlte in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant No. 1 cannot be allowed. However, the plaintiff can be declared as entitled to succeed to the suit schedule property by virtue of Ex.A1 Will. In respect of other reliefs , the plaintiff failed to prove that defendant No. 1 refused to mutate the name of the plaintiff in the records of GHMC in respect of suit schedule property with any evidence excepting the oral statements. Hence the relief of direction to 9 of 10 O.S. No. 127 of 2023 the defendant No. 1 to mutate the name of plaintiff in the municipal records is denied. The point is answered accordingly.

In the result, the suit is partly decreed, declaring that plaintiff is entitled to succeed to the suit schedule property by virtue of Ex.A1 Will. However, the relief of direction to the defendant No. 1 to mutate the suit schedule property in the name of the plaintiff stands dismissed.In the circumstances no costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3rd day of April, 2024.

III SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC XIX ADDL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, SECUNDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

ITNESSES EXAMINEDW

FOR PLAINTIFF S : FOR DEFENDANT S :

PW1: Pullala RajuNONE

PW2: Pabba Ramulu

EXHIBITS MARKED

ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF S :

Ex. A1 is the Notarized original Will, dated: 30-03-2021. Ex.A2. is the Certified Copy of Death Certificate of Late. Smt. Kalavathy, dated. 10-07-2023. Ex.A3. is the Certified Copy of Death Certificate of Late. J. Ramchander, dated. 20-04-2019.

10 of 10 O.S. No. 127 of 2023

Ex.A4. is the Certified Copy of Sale deed Doc. No 644/1985 English translation,

dated:11-03-1985.

Ex.A5 is the Certified Copy of Mortgaged Deed Doc. No.358 of 1988, dated. 17-02-1988. Ex.A6 is the Original Reconveyance Deed, Doc. No.310 of 1988, dated. 20-2-1998. Ex.A7. is the Original Market Value Certificate, dated:25-7-2023. Ex.A8 is the Original Pan Cards (2 Nos) Aadhaar Cards (2No's). Ex.A9. is the Original Property Tax payment Receipt, dated.12-4–2021. Ex.A10 is the Original Water Bills, 3 No's, dated:21-10-2022. Ex.A11 is the Original Electricity Bills, 3 No's, dated 5-7-2023. Ex.A12. Is the Original Photographs (6 No's) with CD. Ex.A13 is the Original Aadhaar Card of the Plaintiff. Ex.A14. Original Voter I.D. Card of Plaintiff's Daughter, dated. 5-7-2017. Ex.A15 is the Original GHMC Approved Plan, dated. 13-10-1987. Ex.A16 is the Certified Copy of Encumbrance Certificate, dated. 24-7- 2023.

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT S : NIL

III SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC XIX ADDL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, SECUNDERABAD.

1 of 9O.S. No. 139 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE XIX ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, AT SECUNDERABAD.

DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY APRIL, 2024

PRESENT: SMT. K. SWAPNA RANI

III SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

FAC XIX ADDL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

O.S. No. 139 of 2022

Between:

1. Nava Yogitha Mahendrakar @ Navayogitha Ghanathe, W/o. Umesh Ghanathe, Aged 43 Years, Occ: House wife, 1776, Bristol Road West, Mississauga, Canada.

2. Nava Joythi Mahendrakar @ Nava Joythi Mahendrakar, W/o. Rahul Subhedar, Aged 40 years, Pvt. Employee, R/o. 483/11, Tilak Nagar, Indore, M.P.

Plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 rep. by their G.P.A Sudhakar Mahendrakar, S/o. Narsoji Rao Mahendrakar.

3. Gayatri Mahendrakar, D/o. Sudhakar Mahendrakar, Aged 36 Years, Pvt. Employee. R/o. H. No. 12-10-46, Building No. 729, Joshi Compound, Near Flyover, Seethafalmandi, Secunderabad 500 015, TELANGANA.…Plaintiffs.

And

Mr. Sailesh Kumar Gujjar, S/o. Late. Nagender Rao Gujjar, Aged 55, Business at 4-1-42, 43, 45/A, Old Bhoiguda, Secunderabad 500 003.… Defendant.

This Suit is coming on this day before me for final disposal in the presence of Sri. G.V. Giridhar, the learned Advocate for the plaintiffs and defendant remained Exparte, the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this court declared the following:- 2 of 9O.S. No. 139 of 2022 // J U D G M E N T //

The suit is filed by plaintiff seeking Recovery of Money of Rs. 23,98,733/- together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum.

1. The brief averments of the plaint are that the plaintiffs deposited total sum of

Rs.14,00,000/- under nine different Promissory Notes, that the plaintiff No. 1 deposited Rs. 10,00,000/- under six Promissory Notes i.e., for Rs. 1,00,000/- dt.

10-05-2014, for Rs.1,50,000/- dt. 07-09-2014, for Rs.1,00,000/- dt. 15-04-2016, for Rs.4,50,000/-, dt. 14.11.2017 and for Rs. 1,00,000/-, dt. 09-06-2018. That the plaintiff No.2 deposited Rs. 2,00,000/- under a Promissory Note Dt. 25-01-2017 and plaintiff No.3 deposited for Rs. 2,00,000/-under two Promissory notes i.e.

Rs.1,00,000/- under a Promissory Note, dt.20-01-2015, and another for

Rs. 1,00,000/- dt. 22-02-2016, with the defendant under an agreement to repay 2% interest.

2. That the Plaintiffs demanded to return their deposits in the month October, 2018 with interest due, but Defendant pleaded for some more time stating his monies are blocked and are likely to be returned between May and August of 2019 and issued Post Dated Cheques in October 2018, for Rs.1,00,000/- bearing Cheque No. 792129, for Rs.1,50,000/- bearing Cheque No. 790580, for

Rs.1,00,000/- bearing Cheque No. 787571, for Rs.1,00,000/- bearing Cheque

No. 914599, for Rs. 4,50,000/- bearing Cheque No. 400510, for Rs. 1,00,000/- 3 of 9O.S. No. 139 of 2022 bearing Cheque No. 777142, for Rs. 2,00,000/- bearing Cheque No. 000050, for

Rs.1,00,000/- bearing Cheque No.792969 and for Rs.1,00,000/- bearing Cheque

No. 773055, all Cheques were dated 24.5.2019 and drawn on Corporation Bank,

Hyderguda Branch, further promising to honor the cheques further assuring that he will settle the interest also in the month of July, 2019.

3. Plaintiffs stated that they were unable to reach the defendant as he was involved in certain criminal cases by year 2019 and plaintiff submitted that the cheques given by the plaintiff and the cheques were returned with memos stating "the account blocked situation covered under 21-25” vide memos dated 21.6.2019, 25.6.2019 and 26.6.2019.

4. It is stated that plaintiffs seen that the office was shut down and sealed and they came to know that the defendant was absconding. Plaintiffs further stated that on learning that an association is registered by the victims of defendant and his front organizations namely M/s. Sri Rishabh Chit Funds (India) Private

Limited and another unregistered chit firm known as Om Sai Ram Chits with the name M/s. Sri Rishabh Chit Funds Victims Association that is making efforts to recover the money of gullible investors who were cheated by defendant and his associates and the plaintiff joined the Association. That the said association is trying to help the victims by giving legal assistance as well as trying to recover 4 of 9O.S. No. 139 of 2022 the amount by taking legal steps. When the adhoc committee met the defendant, he gave an undertaking on Rs. 100/- non judicial stamp paper on 23.10.2018 stating: “That I promise to pay all the dues of chit subscribers and deposit holders by 10 A.M. 25th November, 2018 in the presence of all chit subscribers and deposit holders in the premises ob Bhavasar Bhavan, Nimboli Adda,

Kachiguda in the presence of president Mahadev Patangay and Umesh Jatine of

Bhavasar Kshatriya Samaj”.

5. Plaintiffs stated that the defendant in collusion with his associates has conspired with an ulterior motive in a preplanned manner to cheat public and upsurp their hard earned monies for wrongful gains causing wrongful loss to the public misusing the trust reposed on him which is a clear case of fraud played on public for wrongful gains in premeditated conspiracy. Hence the suit.

6. Summons sent through court were affixed on outer door. Publication in respect of defendant was issued but defendant did not turn up. Hence the defendant was set exparte.

7. Sri. Sudhakar Mahendrakar,G.P.A holder of plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 is examined as PW1 and plaintiff No. 3 is examined as PW2. Exs. A1 to A29 are marked through PW1 and PW2.

8. Heard learned counsel for plaintiffs and perused the record.

5 of 9O.S. No. 139 of 2022

9. Now the point for consideration is “Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of recovery of suit amount, as prayed for”.?

10. POINT :- As discussed above, PW1 and PW2 were examined and exhibited

Exs. A1 to A29. Ex.A1 is the Cheque No.792129 for Rs. 1,00,000/- issued by defendant in favour of plaintiff No. 1, dt. 24.5.2019, Ex.A2 is the Cheque Return memo by plaintiff's Bank, dt. 26.6.2019, Ex.A3 is the Promissory Note executed by defendant to plaintiff No. 1 for Rs. 1,00,000/-, dt. 10.5.2014, Ex.A4 is the

Cheque No. 790580 issued by defendant to plaintiff No. 1 for Rs. 1,50,000/-,

Ex. A5 is the Cheque return memo, dt. 25.6.2019, Ex. A6 is the Promissory

Note executed by defendant to plaintiff No. 1 for Rs. 1,50,000/-, dt. 7.9.2014,

Ex.A7 is the Cheque No.787571 for Rs.1,00,000/- issued by defendant in favour of plaintiff No. 1, dt. 24.5.2019, Ex. A8 is the Cheque Return memo dt.

25.6.2019, EX.A9 is the Promissory Note executed defendant to plaintiff No. 1 for Rs. 1,00,000, dt. 23.2.2016, Ex.A10 is the Cheque No. 914599 issued by the defendant to plaintiff No. 1 for Rs. 1,00,000/-, Ex.A11 is the Cheque return memo, dt. 25.6.2019, Ex.A12 is the Promissory Note executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff No. 1 for Rs. 1 ,00,000/-, dt. 15.04.2016, Ex.A13 is the

Cheque No. 400510 issued by the defendant to plaintiff No. 1 for Rs. 4,50,000/,

dt. 24.5.2019, Ex.A14 is the Cheque Return Memo, dt. 26.6.2019, Ex. A15 is

the Promissory Note executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff No. 1 for 6 of 9O.S. No. 139 of 2022

Rs. 4 ,50,000/ dt. 14.11.2017, Ex.A16 is the Cheque No. 777142 issued by the defendant to plaintiff No. 1 for Rs. 1,00,000/-, dt. 24.5.2019, Ex.A17 is the

Cheque Return Memo, dt. 25.6.2019, Ex.A18 is the Promissory Note executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff No. 1 for Rs. 1 ,00,000/-, dt. 9.6.2018, Ex.A19 is the Cheque No. 000050 issued by the defendant to plaintiff No. 2 for

Rs. 2,00,000/-, dt. 24.5.2019, Ex.A20 is the Cheque return memo, dt.

21.6.2019, Ex.A21 is the Promissory Note Executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff No. 2 for Rs. 2,00,000/-, dt. 25.1.2017, Ex.A22 is the Power of

Attorney, plaintiff No. 1, Ex.A23 is the Power of Attorney, plaintiff No.2, Ex.

A24 is the cheque No. 792969 for Rs. 1,00,000/- issued by defendant in favour of plaintiff No. 3, dt. 24.5.2019, Ex.A25 is the cheque return memo by plaintiff’s bank, dt. 21.6.2019, Ex.A26 is the Promissory Note executed by defendant to plaintiff No. 3 for Rs. 1,00,000/-, dt. 20.1.2015, Ex.A27 is the cheque No.

773055 issued by defendant to plaintiff No. 3 for Rs. 1,50,000/-, dt. 24.5.2019,

Ex.A28 is the cheque return memo, dt. 21.6.2019, Ex.A29 is the Promissory

Note executed by defendant to plaintiff No. 3 for Rs. 1,00,000/-, dt. 22.2.2016 respectively. The oral and documentary evidence produced by plaintiffs are not challenged and remained unrebutted. Hence theplaintiffs proved the suit claim.

Further, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of recovery of suit amount from the defendant.

7 of 9O.S. No. 139 of 2022

The point is answered in affirmative.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in faovur of the plaintiffs and against the defendant directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 23,98,733/- together with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2nd day of April, 2024.

III SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC XIX ADDL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, SECUNDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF S : FOR DEFENDANT S :

PW1: Sudhakar MahendrakarNONE

PW2: Gayatri Mahendrakar

EXHIBITS MARKED

ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF S : Ex.A1 is the Cheque No.792129 for Rs. 1,00,000/- issued by defendant in favour of plaintiff No. 1, dt. 24.5.2019.

Ex.A2 is the Cheque Return memo by plaintiffs’ Bank, dt. 26.6.2019.

Ex.A3 is the Promissory Note executed by defendant to plaintiff No. 1 for Rs. 1,00,000/-, dt. 10.5.2014.

Ex.A4 is the Cheque No. 790580 issued by defendant to plaintiff No. 1 for Rs. 1,50,000/-,dt. 24.5.2019.

Ex. A5 is the Cheque return memo, dt. 25.6.2019.

8 of 9O.S. No. 139 of 2022

Ex. A6 is the Promissory Note executed by defendant to plaintiff No. 1 for Rs. 1,50,000/-, dt. 7.9.2014.

Ex.A7 is the Cheque No.787571 for Rs.1,00,000/- issued by defendant in favour of plaintiff No. 1, dt. 24.5.2019.

Ex. A8 is the Cheque Return memo by plaintiffs’ bank, dt. 25.6.2019.

EX.A9 is the Promissory Note executed by the defendant to plaintiff No. 1 for Rs. 1,00,000, dt. 23.2.2016.

Ex.A10 is the Cheque No. 914599 issued by the defendant to plaintiff No. 1 for Rs. 1,00,000/-.

Ex.A11 is the Cheque return memo, dt. 25.6.2019.

Ex.A12 is the Promissory Note executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff No. 1 for Rs. 1 ,00,000/-, dt. 15.04.2016.

Ex.A13 is the Cheque No. 400510 issued by the defendant to plaintiff No. 1 for Rs. 4,50,000/, dt. 24.5.2019.

Ex.A14 is the Cheque Return Memo, dt. 26.6.2019.

Ex. A15 is the Promissory Note executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff No. 1 for Rs. 4,50,000/- dt. 14.11.2017.

Ex.A16 is the Cheque No. 777142 issued by the defendant to plaintiff No. 1 for Rs.1,00,000/-, dt. 24.5.2019.

Ex.A17 is the Cheque Return Memo, dt. 25.6.2019.

Ex.A18 is the Promissory Note executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff No. 1 for Rs. 1,00,000/-, dt. 9.6.2018.

Ex.A19 is the Cheque No. 000050 issued by the defendant to plaintiff No. 2 for Rs. 2,00,000/-, dt. 24.5.2019.

Ex.A20 is the Cheque return memo, dt. 21.6.2019.

Ex.A21 is the Promissory Note executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff No. 2 for Rs. 2,00,000/-, dt. 25.1.2017.

Ex.A22 is the Power of Attorney, plaintiff No. 1.

Ex.A23 is the Power of Attorney, plaintiff No. 2.

Ex.A24 is the cheque No. 792969 for Rs. 1,00,000/- issued by defendant in favour of plaintiff No. 3, dt. 24.5.2019.

Ex.A25 is the cheque return memo by plaintiff’s bank, dt. 21.6.2019.

Ex.A26 is the Promissory Note executed by defendant to plaintiff No. 3 for Rs. 1,00,000/-, dt. 20.1.2015.

9 of 9O.S. No. 139 of 2022

Ex.A27 is the cheque No. 773055 issued by defendant to plaintiff No. 3 for Rs. 1,50,000/-, dt. 24.5.2019.

Ex.A28 is the cheque return memo.

Ex.A29 is the Promissory Note executed by defendant to plaintiff No. 3 for Rs. 1,00,000/-, dt. 22.2.2016.

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT : NIL

III SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC XIX ADDL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

CITY CIVIL COURT, SECUNDERABAD.

1 of 7 O.S. No. 9 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE III SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, AT SECUNDERABAD.

DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF APRIL, 2024

PRESENT: SMT. K. SWAPNA RANI

III SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

O.S. No. 9 of 2022

Between: M/s. South King Wire & Cable, Rep. By its Proprietor Sri. Chandrakanth Singhi, S/o. Prithviraj Singhi, Aged. 47 years, Carrying business at Premises No. 5-1-26, R.P. Road, Secunderabad and Factory at Sy. Nos’. 245, 309, 310 & 311, Subhash Nagar, Jeedimetla Village, Quthbullapur, R.R. District.…Plaintiff.

And

M/s. G S Industries , Rep. by its Proprietor Mr. Jaswant Singh, Aged about 52 years, Carrying business at 1359/A, Pootkalan, Delhi – 110086.…Defendant.

This Suit is coming on this day before me for final disposal in the presence of M/s. Goverdhan Reddy, the learned Advocate for the plaintiff and Defendant set

Exparte, the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:- //J U D G M E N T//

The suit is filed by plaintiff seeking Recovery of Money of Rs. 20,31,780/- together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum .

1. The brief facts of the case are that plaintiff is a proprietorship concern of Sri.

Chandrakanth Singhi involved in the manufacturing and dealing of Electrical cables & wires. That the defendant is a dealer and supplier of various types of 2 of 7 O.S. No. 9 of 2022

Electrical cables & wires manufacturing machines. The plaintiff for immediate requirements, placed an order with the defendant for purchase of 630 mm

Double Twist Copper High Speed Bunching Machine basing on the Quotation

Ref. No.GSII/Q/1860 dated. 19/11/2019 and assurance given by the representatives of the defendant. At the time of giving Quotation, the representatives of the defendant explained the plaintiff about the accuracy, quality and perfection product yield out of the said machine covering all the requirements of plaintiff. Being impressed by the assurance, accuracy, quality, perfection and production, plaintiff placed Purchase Order on 19/11/2019 and also made payment of the invoice amount as per the agreed terms and made 40% of its cost as advance to the defendant. But defendant failed to supply the machine within agreed time of one month from confirmation of order. The defendant after hectic persuasions, supplied machine through GST Invoice

No.062 dated 03/09/2020 via M/s G. Saroya Logiest to the plaintiff and installed the same on 16/09/2020 at plaintiff's factory situated at Impedimenta with almost delay of 10 months.

2.Plaintiff stated that the bunching machine supplied by the defendant is not at all in accordance with the specifications and assurance given by the defendant.

It is of inferior quality and when the machine was put to use by the plaintiff, it did not even work for 4 (four) hours continuously inspire of changing all the bearings 3 of 7 O.S. No. 9 of 2022 and most of the parts as suggested by the representatives of the defendant.

Plaintiff further stated that that for every 15 days there was a breakdown of the

Machine and due to such frequent breakdowns, the plaintiff suffered huge loss in the form of production loss, idling of the resources and affecting their ability to meet the supply commitments which in turn caused a dent to plaintiff's reputation as prompt and committed supplier. All these happened solely due to breakdowns of the inferior quality and faulty machine supplied by the defendant. In spite of delay in supply as well as in rectification of faults to make the machine start working, it did not work as assured by the defendant. As the technicians could not rectify the faults for the frequent breakdowns, the defendant realized that the supplied machine is having manufacturing defects and not able to rectify the same to make it good use, the defendant agreed to replace the defective machine with a new one and directed the plaintiff to return the same.

Accordingly, the plaintiff returned the defective and faulty Machine to defendant on 28/12/2020 vied DC No.165.

3. Plaintiff further stated that the machine supplied by the defendant is defective and faulty which deviates from the Purchase Order specifications. After return of the said machine, the defendant did not bother about replacement machine even after repeated reminders and correspondents made by the plaintiff. There was no proper response from the defendant. Thus the plaintiff suffered huge loss.

4 of 7 O.S. No. 9 of 2022

4. Plaintiff stated that, because of the defective machine and its frequent breakdowns and failure to replace the machine, even after about a year of returning the machine, the plaintiff sustained huge loss. Thus the defendant is liable to pay in total Rs. 20,31,780/- (Rs. Twenty Lakes thirty one thousands

Seven hundred and eighty only) towards return of machine cost paid by the plaintiff to defendant, repairing charges, transport charges, loss of production and delay in replacement of machine as damages and loss sustained by the plaintiff.

5. It is further stated that the intentional actions of defendant in supplying a machine which is not in accordance with the details and description as per the quotation & Purchase Order and having inherent manufacturing defects due to which the plaintiff was unable to use it continuously even from the date of supply and installation of the faulty and inferior quality machine and that too much beyond the agreed delivery time of one month, taking return of machine promising to replace with new one but did not replace even after a year of such return, not responding to the reminders, requests and intentionally causing losses to the plaintiff as above are all amounts to not only cheating but also deficient acts which amount to deficiency of service to customer/consumer.

6. Plaintiff vexed with the attitude of the defendant caused a notice st.

01.10.2021 calling upon the defendant for replacement machine fully meeting 5 of 7 O.S. No. 9 of 2022 the specifications of purchase order, immediately and also to pay the above amounts of loss caused to plaintiff till this date. It is pleaded that the defendant managed the postal authorities and got it returned unversed. Even after sending the legal notice, the defendant did not replace the machine nor paid any damages sustained by the plaintiff. Hence the suit.

7. Summons sent through court were returned unversed stating “Left”.

Publication in respect of defendant filed, but defendant did not appear. Hence defendant was set expatriate.

8. Sir. Chandrakant Singh, Proprietor of plaintiff company is examined as PW1 and Es. A1 to A14 are marked through PW1.

9. Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff and perused the record.

10. Now the point for consideration is “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of recovery of suit amount, as prayed for”.?

11. POINT: As discussed above, PW1 was examined and exhibited Exs.A1 to

A14. Ex.A1 is the Purchase Order dt. 19.11.2019, Ex.A2 is the copy of the

GST Invoice dt. 03.09.2020, Ex.A3 is the E-Way Bill System dt. 03.09.2020,

Ex.A4 is the Copy of Consignment letter dt. 03.09.2020, Ex.A5 is the Copy of the mail sent to the defendant on 08.10.2020, Ex.A6 is the Copy of the mail sent to the defendant on 28.10.2020, Ex.A7 is the Copy of the mail sent to the 6 of 7 O.S. No. 9 of 2022 defendant on 25.12.2020, Ex.A8 is the Copy of the Consignment sent to the defendant dt. 29.12.2020, Ex.A9 is the E-Way Bill System dt. 28.12.2020,

Ex.A10 is the Copy of the mail sent to the defendant on 17.04.2021, Ex.A11 is the Copy of the mail sent to the defendant on 28.08.2021, Ex.A12 is the Office

Copy of Legal Notice dt. 01.10.2021, Ex.A13 is the Returned Postal Cover,

Ex.A14 is the Copy of GST Registration certificate. The oral and documentary evidence produced by plaintiff is not challenged and remained unattributed.

Further, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff proved the suit claim. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of recovery of suit amount from the defendants. The point is answered in affirmative.

In the result, the suit is decreed, with costs in faovur of the plaintiff and against the defendant directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 20,31,780/- together with future interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing suit till the date of decree and @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of April’2024.

III SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, SECUNDERABAD.

7 of 7 O.S. No. 9 of 2022

A PPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

PW1: Chandrakant SinghNONE

EXHIBITS MARKED

ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF :

Ex.A1 is the Purchase Order dt. 19.11.2019.

Ex.A2 is the copy of the GST Invoice dt. 03.09.2020.

Ex.A3 is the E-Way Bill System dt. 03.09.2020.

Ex.A4 is the Copy of Consignment letter dt. 03.09.2020.

Ex.A5 is the Copy of the mail sent to the defendant on 08.10.2020.

Ex.A6 is the Copy of the mail sent to the defendant on 28.10.2020.

Ex.A7 is the Copy of the mail sent to the defendant on 25.12.2020.

Ex.A8 is the Copy of the Consignment sent to the defendant dt. 29.12.2020.

Ex.A9 is the E-Way Bill System dt. 28.12.2020.

Ex.A10 is the Copy of the mail sent to the defendant on 17.04.2021.

Ex.A11 is the Copy of the mail sent to the defendant on 28.08.2021.

Ex.A12 is the Office Copy of Legal Notice dt. 01.10.2021.

Ex.A13 is the Returned Postal Cover.

Ex.A14 is the Copy of GST Registration Certificate.

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT : NIL

III SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, SECUNDERABAD.