OS.No.969/2016 & OS.No.911/2017
Dt.05.01.2023 Page No.1 of 22
IN THE COURT OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:
CITY CIVIL COURT : HYDERABAD.
DATED THIS THE FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND
TWENTY THREE
PRESENT: Sri.P.Purushotham Rao,
XVIII Additional Senior Civil Judge,
City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
OS.No.969 of 2016 and OS.No.911 of 2017
OS No.969/2016
Between: Mrs.Hajira Khatoon, W/o. Late Mohd. Abdul Kareem, D/o. Late Iqbal Ahmed, aged about 54 years, Occ: Household, R/o.Dubai, U.A.E., and Permanent R/o.H.No.19-2-21/23/25/C, Basharath Nagar, Jahanuma, Hyderabad, Being rep. by her GPA Holder Sikender Ahmed, S/o. Late Iqbal Ahmed, Aged about 37 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.19-2-21/23/25/C,
Basharath Nagar, Jahanuma, Hyderabad....Plaintiff
And
Mrs. Sakeena Begum, W/o.Mohd Arif, D/o. Late Iqbal Ahmed, R/o.1st floor H.No.19-2-23/M/1/14/A, Mecca Colony,
Kalapather, Hyderabad, T.S....Defendant
OS No.911/2017
Between: Smt.Sakeena Begum, W/o. Sri Mohammed Farooq, aged 43 years, Occ: Household, R/o. First floor portion of H.No.19-2-23/M/1/14/A,
Mecca Colony, Kalapathar, Hyderabad....Plaintiff
XVIII ASCJ
OS.No.969/2016 & OS.No.911/2017
Dt.05.01.2023 Page No.2 of 22
And
Smt.Hajira Khatoon, D/o. Late Sri Iqbal Ahmed, Aged 54 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Dubai- U.A.E. presently residing at H.No.19-2-21/23/25/C, Basharath Nagar,
Jahanuma, Hyderabad-T.S....Defendant
Plaintiff in O.S.No. 969/2016 is Defendant in O.S,No.911/2017 and vice versa
These suits are coming on 06.12.2022 before me for final common hearing after common trail in O.S.No. 969/2016 in the presence of Sri Mumtaz Ilahi Khan, counsel for the plaintiff; M/s Mohd. Shafiuddin, counsel for the defendant in OS
No.969/2016 and M/s Mohd. Shafiuddin, counsel for the plaintiff; Sri P.Naveen
Kumar, counsel for the defendant in OS No.911/2017 and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this date, this court delivered the following:
: COMMON JUDGMENT :
Plaintiff in OS No.969/2016 is defendant in OS No.911/2017 (OS No.2214/2016) and vice versa. OS No.969/2016 is filed by plaintiff for recovery of possession and damages against defendant. In fact defendant filed
OS No.2214/2016 (OS.No.911/2017) for perpetual injunction against the plaintiff
herein on 07.09.2016. Whereas OS No.969/2016 is filed on 20.09.2016. As per the orders of Hon’ble Chief Judge, in Tr.OP 1349/2017 dt.25.07.2017 OS
No.2214/2016 is transferred from VIII Junior Civil Judge to this Court and renumbered as OS No.911/2017.
Both the counsel in OS No.911/2017 filed memo to club the suit with OS No.969/2016 and permit to lead evidence in OS No.969/2016 for which
XVIII ASCJ
OS.No.969/2016 & OS.No.911/2017
Dt.05.01.2023 Page No.3 of 22 the defendants counsel reported no objection. So, joint trial let in OS
No.969/2016.
2. The brief averments of the plaint in OS No.969/2016:
2.1The plaintiff is owner and possessor of suit schedule property bearing No.19-2-23/M/1/14/A, admeasuring 105.00 sq yards equivalent to 87.79 sq meters, situated at Mecca Colony, Kalapather, Hyderabad, T.S. She is the owner of the property by way of registered released deed dated 11.07.2007 vide document No.1830 of 2007 at Sub-Registrar, Doodh Bowli, Hyderabad. Iqbal
Ahmed is owner and possessor of property. He died on 13.06.2002, leaving behind the mother of the plaintiff, five sons and five daughters. Upon the death of her father, the mother, sons and daughters became joint owners and possessors of suit schedule property and share holders as per the Islamic Law and Muslim
Personal Law.
2.2Plaintiff further submitted that plaintiff is in Dubai, U.A.E., along with her husband and children since long time. Plaintiff to have a shelter in
Hyderabad, expressed her intention to purchase the property to her father Late
Iqbal Ahmed. She send money to her father for purchase of house. Accordingly, her father purchased suit schedule property from one Majid Khan on 27.03.2001 in his name. It is well known to all brothers and sisters and also defendant herein who is younger sister of plaintiff. Later with the funds of the plaintiff, ground +
XVIII ASCJ
OS.No.969/2016 & OS.No.911/2017
Dt.05.01.2023 Page No.4 of 22 two floors were constructed. After the death of her father Late Iqbal Ahmed, mother, five brothers and five sisters including defendant collectively executed released deed and got registered the same vide document No.1830 of 2007 on 11.07.2007 by relinquishing their right in favour of plaintiff. Thus, plaintiff has became absolute owner and possessor of suit schedule property and regularly paying property taxes, electricity bills, water charges etc., 2.3Defendant is younger sister of the plaintiff she fell in love with one
Mohd. Arif and she fled away with him. She married without knowledge of any family members on 13.08.1999. The act of the defendant damaged the reputation of the family in the society. The defendant and her husband moved one place to another. The life of defendant has became miserable as her husband has become drunkard and vagonbond. The plaintiff being elder sister helped defendant financially on several occasions in the education of the children of the defendant.
On sympathetic and on humanitarian grounds and because of love and affection, plaintiff permitted defendant to live in suit schedule property in first floor consisting of two rooms, one hall, kitchen, W.C. & bathroom for some period on condition that as and when demanded by the plaintiff, defendant voluntarily agreed for the same. Defendant being in permissive possession enjoying all the amenities on free of cost since long time. Defendant taking advantage of plaintiff is leaving at abroad, inducted some third persons as tenants on ground and second floor and receiving the rents and usurping and swallowing the said
XVIII ASCJ
OS.No.969/2016 & OS.No.911/2017
Dt.05.01.2023 Page No.5 of 22 amounts without accounting the same and plaintiff came to know it, she came to know about the illegal activity of the defendant, defendant did not allow the plaintiff to enter into the suit schedule property, quarreled with her, used un- parliamentary, ugly and filthy language and threatened with dire consequences.
In the month of July, 2016 plaintiff again demanded her to vacate the premises immediately and get vacate the un-authorised occupiers of her, through her but defendant refused to vacate the premises. She did not even allow, defendant and his brothers to know about persons who are in occupation of ground and second floors.
2.4Plaintiff vexed with the attitude of the defendant revoked the permissive possession and sent legal notice on 04.08.2016 demanding the defendant to vacate the premises. Defendant gave evasive reply notice with untenable and false allegations.
2.5In reply notice, defendant clearly admitted that plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property. The contents of the reply clearly establishes that defendant wants to hold the possession illegally and un-authorisedly on one way or the other. The other occupants are taking shelter under the defendant.
Plaintiff is absolute owner of the suit schedule property and having right title and interest over it. The defendant failed to vacate the suit schedule property, plaintiff is entitled to claim damages of Rs.25,000/- per month for illegal occupation after
XVIII ASCJ
OS.No.969/2016 & OS.No.911/2017
Dt.05.01.2023 Page No.6 of 22 revocation of permission through legal notice.
3. The brief averments of the written statement of the defendant are:
3.1The defendant denied that plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property by way of release deed document No.1830 of 2007 dated 11.07.2007.
Originally the suit schedule property 105 square yards was held by father of the plaintiff and defendant. Plaintiff is elder sister of defendant. Their father died on 13.06.2002 leaving behind house property to be inherited by his widow namely
Mrs. Rasheedunnisa Begum the mother of the plaintiff and defendant and five sons and five daughters. As per Muslim law of inheritance, widow is entitled to ¼ share whereafter from the remaining property the sons and daughters of the deceased are entitled to their shares in the ratio of 2 shares to the male and 1 share to the female established the aforesaid property admeasuring 105 square yards firstly would be taken up for providing the ¼ share to the widow of Late
Iqbal Ahmed that would work out to 26.25 square yards substracting 26.25 sq yards from 105 sq yards would leave 78.75 sq yards which is to be divided between five sons and five daughters that is totally 15 shares. Whereby each son of Late Iqbal Ahmed was to receive 10.4 sq yards of the house property and the daughters would stand entitled to receive 5.2 sq yards each. By no stretch of imagination can every heir of Late Iqbal Ahmed receive equal share as per
Mohammed Law.
XVIII ASCJ
OS.No.969/2016 & OS.No.911/2017
Dt.05.01.2023 Page No.7 of 22 3.2The defendant herein all along during the life time of her father resided in the aforesaid property. Even after the death of her father, she continued to reside in the property being in occupation of the first floor portion of the said house consisting of two rooms, one hall, kitchen, W.C. bathroom.
3.3Defendant admitted that father of the plaintiff was the owner and possessor of suit schedule property and he died on 13.06.2002. She also admitted the relation the plaintiff and their parents are having five sons and five daughters.
She also admitted that after the death of their father she, plaintiff and other daughters and five sons became joint owners and possessors of suit schedule property and share holders as per Islamic Law and Muslim Personal Law. She also admitted that plaintiff is residing with her children and husband at Dubai since long time. She denied that her father purchased the house with the money paid by plaintiff.
3.4It is further contention of defendant that the plaintiff obtained the registered release deed from legal heirs of Late Iqbal Ahmed under coercion and the document is defective one where under (11) eleven equal shares of the property was made for the said property. Defendant was always with the possession of the suit schedule property in the past much less on her prefer to 11
July, 2007. So, the recitals of the document to the effect that vacating the physical possession was delivered to plaintiff is incorrect and false. The
XVIII ASCJ
OS.No.969/2016 & OS.No.911/2017
Dt.05.01.2023 Page No.8 of 22 defendant having received notice dated 04.08.2016 got issued reply address to the counsel of the plaintiff. In the notice dated 04.08.2016, the plaintiff did not stated providing of funds by her father for purchase of suit schedule property so it is the clear case that the plaintiff in order to grab the suit schedule property to avoid share of co-owners made all such pleadings.
3.5The another contention of the defendant is that no consideration was paid by the plaintiff to other legal heirs of Late Iqbal Ahmed and forcibly demanded the execution and registration of an instrument in shape of a release deed to be executed by the mother, brothers, sisters of the defendant in respect of house property. Another contention of defendant is that by giving notice dated 04.08.2016 plaintiff had afforded 30 days time to the defendant to vacate the portion of the house and that 30 days expired by 05.09.2016. In the reply she enumerated the details and not vacated the suit schedule property and continued to be in physical possession of suit schedule property. The defendant resorted to illegal force by sending her henchmen to threaten the defendant to vacate the suit schedule property. Hence, she filed suit in OS No.2214/2016 (OS No.911/2017) on the file of the Hon’ble VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for relief of perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiff from dispossessing the defendant. The Hon’ble Court was also pleased to pass ad-interim order in her favour. The present suit is filed after filing of perpetual injunction suit by the defendant.
XVIII ASCJ
OS.No.969/2016 & OS.No.911/2017
Dt.05.01.2023 Page No.9 of 22 3.6The plaintiff has no manner of right over the suit schedule property and filed a false suit. There is no cause of action for the suit and suit is liable to be dismissed.
4. The defendant is the plaintiff in OS No.911/2017 the brief facts of the plaintiff’s case in OS No.911/2017 are that:
4.1The suit schedule property belongs to her father. Defendant is her elder sister. Her father died on 13.06.2002 leaving behind his widow
Rasheedunnisa Begum, five sons and five daughters including plaintiff and defendant who are daughters. She resided in the suit schedule property during the life time of her father and even after continued to reside in the very same property. She is in occupation of first floor portion. The defendant living in
Dubai was not in physical possession or joint possession of the house five years after the death of their father defendant upon legal heirs of Mr. Iqbal Ahmed and got release and relinquishment of their rights in the property. No consideration was passed under the deed they were forced to execute the deed in favour of defendant. In the deed 11 equal shares of the property was shown under
Mohammed law the widow of her father i.e., her mother is entitled to ¼ share where after from the remaining property the sons and daughters of original deceased are entitled to their shares in the ratio of 2 shares to male and one share to the female. Thus, the document is defective and cannot be valid legally it is made under coercion. Plaintiff preferred to after execution of deed was in
XVIII ASCJ
OS.No.969/2016 & OS.No.911/2017
Dt.05.01.2023 Page No.10 of 22 possession of it. The release deed is incorrect and false. The ration card, election card, aadhar card filed by her and birth certificate of her son, clearly speaks that they are residence of the suit schedule property. She got suitable reply for the notice dated 04.08.2016. The defendant to forcibly vacate the plaintiff on 06.09.2016 came to suit schedule property and by show of illegal force tried to dispossess her but with great difficulty she resisted the said attempts of defendant. If decree is not passed in her favour she will suffer irreparable loss and injury.
5. Written statement of the defendant and the averments are in brief:
5.1In the written statement filed by the defendant she pleaded that her father was the owner of suit schedule property and he died on 13.06.2002. She is resided at Dubai and with her financial assistance her father purchased the property in his name from one Majid Khan on 27.03.2001 later with her funds, ground + two floors were constructed. After the death of her father her natural mother, five brothers, five sisters including plaintiff collectively executed released deed and got registered vide document No.1830 of 2007 dated 11.07.2007 by relinquishing their right in favour of defendant. Thereafter, she became absolute owner and possessor of suit schedule property. She is regularly paying electricity bills, water charges etc. She further narrated that plaintiff fell in love with one Mohd Arif and fled away with him without the knowledge of family members. Later as her husband became drunken. Defendant being elder
XVIII ASCJ
OS.No.969/2016 & OS.No.911/2017
Dt.05.01.2023 Page No.11 of 22 sister provided financial assistance to her and on sympathetic condition allowed plaintiff in permissive possession of first floor of the building. Plaintiff having taken advantage of defendant had abroad inducted some persons as tenants and collecting rents without any kind of. When defendant demanded to plaintiff to vacate the suit schedule property, she did not allow defendant and her brothers to enter into the suit schedule property. She got issued legal notice on 04.08.2016 to plaintiff demanding to vacate the suit schedule property. Plaintiff issued a false reply blaming the defendant. It is her further pleading that plaintiff is not in lawful possession of the suit schedule property and plaintiff having received legal notice did not vacate the suit schedule property. She is liable to be vacated from the suit schedule property. Hence, prayed to dismiss the OS No.911/2017.
6.Now having perused the pleadings of both sides the following issues are framed in OS No.911/2017.
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction restraining defendant and her men from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over suit schedule property as prayed for?
2. If so to what relief?
7. Having perused the pleadings the following issues are framed in
OS No.969/2016.
XVIII ASCJ
OS.No.969/2016 & OS.No.911/2017
Dt.05.01.2023 Page No.12 of 22
1. Whether the defendant and other occupiers claiming under her can be directed to vacate the suit schedule property i.e., ground, first and second floor and to hand over the physical possession of the same to the plaintiff?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages @ Rs.25,000/- per month from the date of suit till date of vacating the suit schedule property?
3. To what relief?
8.When both cases are upon trial, a memo is filed to permit them to lead trial in OS No.969/2016 and club suits. The other side took no objection and evidence is let in OS No.969/2016.
9.During the course of trial on behalf of the plaintiff, she herself examined as PW1 and Exs.A1 to A13 are marked. On behalf of the defendant in
OS No. 969/2016 and plaintiff in OS No.911/2017, Defendant is examined as
DW1. No documents are marked for her.
10. Arguments:
10.1It is the main argument of the Plaintiff counsel in O.S.No.969/2016 among other submissions are that Plaintiff is admittedly residing at United Arab
Emirates along with her husband for the last more than 30 to 40 years. By virtue of Ex.A2, registered release deed Plaintiff has got right, title and interest over suit schedule property. There is no question of passing consideration as her father purchased the property with the funds provided by her. It is well within the
XVIII ASCJ
OS.No.969/2016 & OS.No.911/2017
Dt.05.01.2023 Page No.13 of 22 knowledge of every family member including Defendant. It is accepted by mother, brother and sisters and then only they voluntarily executed Ex.A2. Now, the Defendant who signed voluntarily upon Ex.A2 is not permitted to say it is executed under coercion. Suit schedule property is not property liable for partition as it is not the property of father of Plaintiff purchased with his funds. It is well within knowledge that funds for purchase of such property is being provided by Plaintiff only.
10.2It is further argued that Ex.A8 to A12 property tax receipts. Ex.A13 electricity charges clearly reflects the name of the Plaintiff. Ex.A6 encumbrance certificate also reflects the transaction that Plaintiff is owner and possessor of it.
10.3It is further argued that DW1 in her cross-examination admitted the execution of Ex.A2, so there is no dispute of execution of release deed.
Defendant in her written statement clearly admitted that she is in permissive possession of first floor. Defendant has not produced any document challenging the validity of Ex.A2. Defendant has not filed any partition suit as per her pleadings. By legal notice dated 04.08.2016 under Ex.A3, PW1 terminated the permission given to DW1. The evasive reply under Ex.A5 by DW1 is not maintainable one. It is prayed to evict DW1 from suit schedule property by giving vacant possession over it.
XVIII ASCJ
OS.No.969/2016 & OS.No.911/2017
Dt.05.01.2023 Page No.14 of 22 10.4The learned defendant’s counsel also submitted written arguments where in it is argued that suit schedule property is owned by Iqbal Ahmed who is father of the Plaintiff and Defendant. He died on 13.06.2002 leaving suit schedule property to be inherited by his legal heirs. Ex.A2 is fabricated and concocted one without giving share to the Defendant. PW1 never provided any funds to her father to purchase the property. In the legal notice under Ex.A3 there is no mention of providing funds to father of Plaintiff and Defendant. DW1 is co-owner as such no suit is maintainable against her. Defendant is residing in the suit schedule property before and after the death of her father where as
Plaintiff resided at Dubai along with her husband and was never in physical possession or joint possession of suit schedule property.
10.5It is further argued by the learned defence counsel that after five years of death of late Mr. Iqbal Ahmed, PW1 forcibly obtained release deed. As per Muslim law of inheritance no equal shares will be between male and female but Ex.A2 speaks equal shares which is incorrect. No consideration is passed under Ex.A2/release deed. DW1 never vacated the suit schedule property much less prior to 11.07.2007 hence the question of delivery of vacant physical possession to PW1 is a blatant lie.
10.6It is further argued by the learned defendant counsel that DW1 received notice dated 04.08.2016 and got issued reply. Notice had afforded 30
XVIII ASCJ
OS.No.969/2016 & OS.No.911/2017
Dt.05.01.2023 Page No.15 of 22 days time to DW1 to vacate portion of the house. DW1 continued to be in physical possession of suit schedule property. Later, PW1 resorted to illegal force, threatened to disposes. Therefore, DW1 filed O.S.No.911/2017 (OS.NO.2214/2016) for perpetual injunction wherein she was given relief of ad.interim injunction against PW1. Thereafter PW1 filed O.S.No.969/2106 based on Ex.A2.
10.7It is further argued that in the cross-examination of PW1, she admitted that even prior to the death of her father, DW1 was residing in the house property and later she inherited a share in the said property. It is further argued that in the cross-examination of PW1, she admitted that in the reply notice
DW1 denied the contention that she had requested to permit her to reside in the first floor portion and denied that she is in permissive possession. It is further argued that there is no proof of payment of money to the father of the Defendant by Plaintiff for purchase of house property. Thus, Plaintiff failed to prove Ex.A2 and her exclusive right, title or interest over suit schedule property and hence suit in O.S.No.969/2016 is liable to be dismissed and O.S.No.911/2017 be decreed as
DW1 is in possession and enjoyment of it.
11. Issue No.1 in OS.No.969/2016:
Whether the defendant and other occupiers claiming under her can
be directed to vacate the suit schedule property i.e., ground, first and second
floor and to hand over the physical possession of the same to the plaintiff?
XVIII ASCJ
OS.No.969/2016 & OS.No.911/2017
Dt.05.01.2023 Page No.16 of 22 11.1PW1 reiterated her pleadings in OS No.969/2016 in her examination-in-chief and got marked as Exs.A1 to A13. Defendant is claiming possession over the suit schedule property and it is her contention that even prior to Ex.A2/release deed document and thereafter also she is in possession of suit schedule property. She being co-sharer of property along with her mother, brother and other sisters, she is in lawful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property and she cannot be evicted without due process of law.
11.2Plaintiff relied upon Ex.A2/release document which is registered release deed dated 11.07.2007. It is testimony of PW1 that the money has paid by her by which her father Iqbal Ahmed purchased the suit schedule property from one Majid Khan. It is well within knowledge of every family member. Later after the death of their father, the surviving legal heirs i.e., her mother, five brothers, five sisters including defendant voluntarily executed the released deed in her favour in respect of suit schedule property and it is registered one. Since 11.07.2007 she is in physical possession of the suit schedule property as they delivered possession of it.
11.3It is her further testimony that she allowed defendant to reside in first floor with permissive possession upon under taking that she has to vacate possession as and when demanded by PW1. It is her further testimony that defendant/DW1 against the will and respect of the family had eloped with one
XVIII ASCJ
OS.No.969/2016 & OS.No.911/2017
Dt.05.01.2023 Page No.17 of 22
Mohammad Arif. Later the husband of DW1 became drunkard and vagabond and did not look after DW1. Upon the condition of DW1 has became miserable then PW1 being elder sister on sympathetic consideration allowed and gave permissive possession to DW1 to reside in the first floor of suit schedule property. The possession of DW1 is permissive possession only and that PW1 is owner and title holder of suit schedule property.
11.4The admitted facts are that they are daughters of Iqbal Ahmed and the suit schedule property is in the name of their father being purchased from one
Majid Khan in the year 2001 and after the death of their father plaintiff, defendant three sisters, five sons and their mother are legal heirs and successors.
11.5As against Ex.A2 document, the defendant strongly contended that as per Muslim Law of inheritance the suit schedule property has to be divided into 15 shares but in Ex.A2 it is only shown that 11 shares and there is no concept of equal shares among all legal heirs under Muslim Law and the document is incorrect.
11.6Ex.A2 document is executed by defendant along with her brothers and sisters and mother. Except defendant none of them were examined for the defendant to state that the document is incorrect, illegal and not binding upon them. DW1 admitted that she did not file any suit to declare that Ex.A2 is null
XVIII ASCJ
OS.No.969/2016 & OS.No.911/2017
Dt.05.01.2023 Page No.18 of 22 and void document and she also admitted that she did not file any suit for partition as per Muslim Law of inheritance.
11.7Plaintiff by filing Ex.A2 registered release deed has established that all the sharers of suit schedule property after the death of their father and husband of their mother executed registered released deed releasing rights in favour of plaintiff. Except examining herself as DW1, defendant did not examine any other witness or at least one of the brother or one of the sister to bring on record that the document is invalid and without consent of the parties to the document. No suit is filed to declare that Ex.A2 is got executed by PW1 with fraud and coercion.
11.8Another contention of the defendant as DW1 is that no consideration is passed under the release deed as such Ex.A2 is void document.
PW1 since the beginning deposing that she provided funds to her father as she was resided at Dubai and her father got executed document in his favour and subsequently she constructed ground + two floors upon it. When out of 10 brothers and sisters only defendant is contesting the suit none of brothers and sisters raised their hand against execution of Ex.A2 document. If really any coercion, force or threat is made by plaintiff for execution of the document, the defendant would have given legal notice or taken recourse to law from the year 2007 to till date of filing the present suits. In the absence of any such attempt by
XVIII ASCJ
OS.No.969/2016 & OS.No.911/2017
Dt.05.01.2023 Page No.19 of 22
DW1 for declaring Ex.A2 is null and void she cannot be permitted to say that the document is executed under coercion or threat. DW1 failed to establish any coercion, threat or undue influence for execution of Ex.A2 release deed. Hence,
Plaintiff established that she is the owner and possessor of suit schedule property by virtue of Ex.A2/release deed and over which the defendant and others claiming through her are in unlawful possession and enjoyment of property.
Hence issue No.1 is answered in favour of Plaintiff and as against the Defendant.
12. Issue No.2 in O.S.No.969/2016:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages @ Rs.25,000/- per month
from the date of suit till date of vacating the suit schedule property?
12.1Plaintiff examined herself as PW1. It is the pleadings of Plaintiff that inspite of legal notice dated 04.08.2016, Defendant failed to vacate the premises and in reply made false and baseless allegations. As Defendant failed to vacate the suit schedule property, she is entitled for damages @ Rs.25,000/- per month for unauthorised illegal occupation.
12.2It is for the Plaintiff to establish that the suit schedule premises is fetching rent of Rs.25,000/- per month and as despite of termination notice the
Defendant failed to vacate as such she is entitled for such damages. There is no oral or documentary evidence let in by Plaintiff to prove that suit schedule property is fetching rent of Rs.25,000/- per month and Defendant is collecting rents from the tenants. Hence, this issue is answered against the Plaintiff.
XVIII ASCJ
OS.No.969/2016 & OS.No.911/2017
Dt.05.01.2023 Page No.20 of 22
13. Issue No.1 in O.S No.911/2017:
Whether plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction restraining
defendant and her men from interfering with peaceful possession and
enjoyment of plaintiff over suit schedule property as prayed for?
13.1.In order to get relief of perpetual injunction, Defendant has to establish that she is in lawful possession and enjoyment over suit schedule property. It is the testimony of PW1 that by virtue of Ex.A2/release deed she is owner and possessor of suit schedule property. Ex.A2 is voluntarily executed by
Defendant and other sisters and brothers. It is her further testimony that she has given permissive possession for Defendant to reside in suit schedule property upon undertaking to vacate it as and when required by Plaintiff. Defendant squatted over the property. PW1 got issued legal notice under Ex.A3 to vacate the premises but without doing so, DW1 got issued a false and baseless reply.
DW1 has taken several pleas of law of inheritance, her possession even prior to
Ex.A2 release deed etc. DW1 has taken plea of coercion, threat and undue influence in executing Ex.A2 release deed in favour of Plaintiff. But, DW1 did not establish it. DW1 admitted execution of Ex.A2 document. When such is the admission, she cannot be permitted to day that PW1 is not the owner and possessor of suit schedule property. Except DW1, none of other brothers and sisters who are signatories to the Ex.A2 raised any objection. While answering issue No.1 in O.S.No.969/2016, this court held that Plaintiff is entitled for evicting the Defendant from the suit schedule property. DW1 despite of legal notice to vacate the suit schedule property within 30 days did not vacate the suit
XVIII ASCJ
OS.No.969/2016 & OS.No.911/2017
Dt.05.01.2023 Page No.21 of 22 schedule property. Hence possession of DW1 is unlawfl and unauthorised.
Defendant failed to bring on record any documentary evidence to establish her lawful possession. Hence, this issue is answered against the Defendant and in favour of Plaintiff.
14. To what relief?
In the result, O.S.No.969/2016 is decreed with costs. Defendant and others claiming through her are directed to vacate the suit schedule property and deliver the possession of the same within two months from the date of this judgment.
The relief of damages is hereby denied. O.S.No.911/2017 is hereby dismissed.
Parties shall bear their own costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer and transcribed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 05 th day of January, 2023.
XVIII ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:
PW1: Mrs. Hajira Khatoon DW1: Sakeena Begum
DOCUMENTS MARKED
FOR PLAINTIFF:
Ex.A1:Market value certificate dated 09.08.2016, 2 sheets. Ex.A2:Certified copy of registered release deed vide Doc.No.1830/2007
dated 11.07.2007, 23 sheets.
XVIII ASCJ
OS.No.969/2016 & OS.No.911/2017
Dt.05.01.2023 Page No.22 of 22
Ex.A3:Office copy of legal notice dated 04.08.2016, one sheet. Ex.A4:Postal receipt and acknowledgment, 2 sheets. Ex.A5:Reply notice of defendant dated 04.09.2016, 2 sheets. Ex.A6:Original encumbrance certificate dated 19.07.2019, one sheet. Ex.A7:Death certificate of father of plaintiff and defendant, Late Iqbal Ahmed dated 13.06.2002, one sheet. Ex.A8:Property tax receipt dated 27.08.2005, one sheet. Ex.A9:Property tax receipt dated 14.05.2007, one sheet. Ex.A10: Property tax receipt dated 11.04.2008, one sheet. Ex.A11: Property tax receipt dated 17.10.2012, one sheet. Ex.A12: Property tax receipt dated 27.08.2016, one sheet. Ex.A13: Three electricity meters payment receipts and one property tax receipt of March, 2017, four sheets.
FOR DEFENDANT: NIL
XVIII ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.
XVIII ASCJ