IN THE COURT OF THE XXVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT AT HYDERABAD
Present: V. SRINIVASA ANJANEYA MURTHY,
Presiding Officer, A.P. State Wakf Tribunal, Hyd. FAC - XXVI Additional Chief Judge, CCC, Hyd.
THURSDAY THE 26th DAY OF JULY, 2018
O.S. No. 15 of 2007
Between:
Mohd. Abdul Waheed, S/o. Late Mohd. Abdul Khader, aged about 53 years, Occ: Private service, R/o. H.No.100, Block No.7, Nanded (Maharashtra), presently residing at H.No.6-3-1185/145 & 145/1, Bhole Sahab Maqta, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. .…. Plaintiff.
AND
1. Mrs. Siraj Sultana, W/o. Late M.A. Qadeer, aged about 56 years, Occ: Employee, R/o.H.No.100, Block No.7, Nanded, Maharashtra.
2. M.A. Muqtadir, S/o. Late M.A. Qadeer, aged about 31 years, Occ: Student, R/o.H.No.100, Block No.7, Nanded, Maharashtra.
3. M.A. Baseer, S/o. Late M.A. Qadeer, aged about 27 years, Occ: Student, R/o.H.No.100, Block No.7, Nanded, Maharashtra.
4. M.A. Qabeer, Late M.A. Qadeer, aged about 26 years, Occ: Student, R/o.H.No.100, Block No.7, Nanded, Maharashtra.
5. M.A. Kabeer S/o Late M.A. Qadeer, aged about 25 years, Occ: Student, R/o.H.No.100, Block No.7, Nanded, Maharashtra.
6. Mrs. Nausheen Fatima, W/o. Nawab Khan, aged about 37 years, Occ: Household, R/o. ST Colony, Katkat Gate, Aurangabad, Maharashtra.
7. Mrs. Tauseef Fatima, W/o. Mohd. Moosa, aged about 35 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Near Badiram Patil High School, N-7, CIDCO ( Mahada), Aurangabad, Maharashtra.
8. Mrs. Sumayya Jamal, W/o. Zafar Khan, aged about 33 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Parbhani, Maharashtra.
9. Mrs. Firasat Fatima, W/o. Mohd. Azam Hashmi, aged about 28 years, Occ: Household, R/o. A.S. Constructions, Fazilpura, ST Colony, Aurangabad, Maharashtra.
10. Mrs. Khursheedunnisa, W/o. Late Murtuza Khan (Died per LRs –D-14 to D-18).
11. Mrs. Akhtarunnisa Begum, W/o. Syed Hifzur Rahman, aged about 56 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No.53, Block No.16, Labour Colony, 2
O.S.No. 15 of 2007
Nanded, Maharashtra.
12. Mohd. Osman, S/o. Mohd. Jaffer, aged about 39 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.6-3-1148/145, Somajiguda, Hyderabad.
13. Mohd. Jaffer, S/o. Not known, aged about 74 years, Occ: Pensioner, R/o. A portion of H.No.6-3-1148/14, 1148/145/1, Bhola Sahab Maqta, Somajiguda, Hyderabad.
14. Mrs. Wajeda Khatoon, W/o. Ab. Shakeel, aged about 45 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No.1-14/347, Darvesh Nagar, Near Masjid, Nanded, Maharashtra.
15. Mrs. Atiya Khatoon, W/o. S.K. Hameed, aged about 44 years, Occ: Household, C/o. Aayesha Iqbal Urdu Primary School, Darga Khane Aalam Basmat, Dist. Hingoli, Maharashtra State.
16. Mrs. Yahiya Khan,S/o. Murtuza Khan, aged about 43 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.1-14-347, Darvesh Nagar, Near Masjid, Nanded, Maharashtra.
17. Mrs. Nazema Khatoon, W/o. Syed Qutubuddin, aged about 42 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No.1-14-347, Darvesh Nagar, Near Masjid, Nanded, Maharashtra.
18. Mrs. Nausrat Khatoon, W/o. Not known, aged about 32 years, Occ: Household, R/o.H.No.1-14-347, Darvesh Nagar, Near Masjid, Nanded, Maharashtra. ( D14 to D18 are impleaded as Legal Heirs of deceased D10 as per
orders in I.A.No.1045/12 Dt.06-07-2015) ... Defendants.
This suit is coming on for hearing before me on 05-07-2018 in the presence of Sri R.A.Atchutanand, Advocate for Plaintiff and Defendant Nos.1 to 11 and Defendant Nos.14 to 18 having remained exparte and Sri. S. Nagesh
Reddy, Advocate for Defendant Nos.12 and 13 and the matter stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:- : : JUDGMENT : :
1.This suit is filed for partition of suit schedule property among the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 11 and 14 to 18. The brief averments of the amended plaint are as follows:
3
O.S.No. 15 of 2007
One Mohd. Abdul Khader was the owner of the suit schedule house property. Mohd. Abdul Khader died in the year 2000 leaving behind him his widow Ahmedunnisa, two sons namely Mohd. Abdul Qader and Mohd. Abdul
Waheed (the plaintiff herein) and two daughters namely Khursheedunnisa and
Aktharunnisa Begum (Defendant Nos.10 and 11 herein). The Widow
Ahmedunnisa died in the year 2006 and the elder son Mohd. Abdul Qadeer also died leaving behind him the Defendant No.1 as his widow, the Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 as his sons and the Defendant Nos. 6 to 9 as his daughters.
The suit schedule house is the only matruka property left by deceased
Mohd. Abdul Khader in which the widow Ahmedunnisa was entitled to 1/8th share and in the remaining 7/8th share, the two sons are entitled to 14/48th share each and the two daughters are entitled to 7/48th each. Since the elder son Mohd.
Abdul Qadeer died, his legal heirs Defendant Nos. 1 to 9 jointly entitled to 14/48th share and the plaintiff is entitled to 14/48th share and Defendant Nos. 10 and 11 are entitled to 7/48th share each.
The plaintiff herein through Caveat petition dated 15-12-2006 came to know that the Defendant No.12 is claiming ownership of the suit property to an extent of 104 square yards as per Gift deed Dt:19-10-2006 in his favour. The plaintiff enquired and found that the donor of Defendant No.12 is the purchaser of the property from the mother of the plaintiff herein. The mother of the plaintiff was entitled for 1/8th share only and hence the transfer of his mother’s share more than 1/8th share is ineffective and hence the Defendant No.12 and his 4
O.S.No. 15 of 2007
donor Defendant No.13 are transferees in the interest to the extent of 1/8th share of the mother of the plaintiff only. Hence, the document executed by the mother of the plaintiff in favour of the Defendant No.13 for sale of 104 square yards out of 194 square yards of the suit house and the Gift Deed executed by Defendant
No.13 in favour of defendant No.12 are not binding the plaintiff and Defendant
Nos. 1 to 11 for more than 1/8th undivided share of the mother of the plaintiff herein. The plaintiff and Defendant Nos.1 to 11 are only legal heirs of the deceased M.A. Khader and they are only entitled to inherit the suit schedule property left by the deceased M.A. Khader.
The plaintiff demanded the defendants for partition, but the defendant
Nos.1, 10, 11 & 12 are avoiding partition and they are trying to dispose off the suit property. Hence, the plaintiff filed this suit seeking for partition of the suit property and for his share of 14/48th share in the suit property.
The plaintiff further sought for the relief of declaration that the document of Agreement of Sale for 104 square yards executed by his mother in favour of
Defendant No.13 and the Gift Deed executed by Defendant No.13 in favour of
Defendant No.12 as ineffective and not binding on him and Defendant Nos. 1 to 11 for more than 1/8th share of his mother.
2.The Defendant Nos. 1 to 11 and Defendant Nos.14 to 18 remained exparte.
The Defendant Nos. 12 and 13 alone contested the suit by filing Written
Statement and Additional Written Statement. The Defendant Nos. 12 and 13 in 5
O.S.No. 15 of 2007
their written statement denied the claim of the plaintiff and further contended that the plaintiff is not residing in the suit property and he is a resident of
Nanded, Maharashtra State and that these defendant Nos. 12 and 13 are in actual physical possession of the suit schedule property. It is further contended that
Mohd. Abdul Khader was not the owner of suit schedule property and the documents produced by the plaintiff are fabricated documents. It is further stated that long back one Sakina Bee was the absolute owner in possession of the suit property and she is having one daughter Ahmedunnisa and the said Sakina Bee in her lifetime out of love and affection as per Mohammedan Law orally gifted the suit property in favour of her daughter Ahmedunnisa by delivering possession of the suit property to her daughter and her daughter Ahmedunnisa accepted the said Gift. Subsequently, Sakina Bee also died and the said Sakina
Bee is nothing but the maternal grandmother of the plaintiff herein. Later
Ahmedunnisa in her lifetime sold part of the suit property bearing H.No.
6-3-1185/145 ad measuring 104 square yards to Defendant No.13 by executing an Agreement of Sale Dt.20-12-2004 and the said transaction taken place in the presence of the plaintiff. The Defendant No.13 also paid property tax in respect of the said property purchased by him and he became absolute owner of the said property and subsequently out of love and affection the Defendant No.13 gifted the said property in favour of his son who is the Defendant No.12 herein under a registered Gift Deed Dt: 19-10-2006 and as such as on today the defendant
No.12 is the absolute owner of 104 square yards bearing H.No.6-3-1185/145 6
O.S.No. 15 of 2007
which is part of the suit property and it is not the mathruka property and it is not liable for partition. The electricity meter is in the name of Defendant No.13 for the said house to the knowledge of the plaintiff herein and only to extract money illegally from these defendants, the plaintiff filed the present suit for partition with false averments and fabricated documents. Thus, Ahmedunnisa was the real owner of the part of the suit property for an extent of 104 square yards with
H.No.6-3-1185/145 and from her the Defendant No.13 acquired the said property and from Defendant No.13 the Defendant No.12 acquired the same and to the contra the claim of the plaintiff is false. The court fee paid by the plaintiff is also not correct and the boundaries of the suit property are also not correct and thereby the defendant Nos. 12 and 13 prayed for dismissal of the suit.
The defendant Nos.12 and 13 in their Additional Written Statement, contended that the plaintiff has no claim over the suit property and thereby prayed for dismissal of the suit.
3. The plaintiff filed rejoinder to the Written Statement and Additional
Written Statement of the Defendant Nos.12 and 13 denying the averments of the same and further contended that in the plaint schedule the house number was correctly given, but due to oversight it was wrongly mentioned in the copy of the plaint supplied to the defendants and the boundaries also correctly mentioned in the plaint schedule though mistakenly shown in the copy of the pliant supplied to the plaintiff and the defendant Nos.12 and 13 cannot take advantage of the said mistake. Thus, the plaintiff prayed for decree of the suit.
7
O.S.No. 15 of 2007
4.Basing on the pleadings of both the parties, the following issues are settled for
Trial:
1.Whether Mohd. Abdul Khader was the owner of the suit schedule property as pleaded by the plaintiff?
2.Whether the suit schedule property belongs to Ahmedunnisa and Defendant No.13 has purchased the said property from her as pleaded by him?
3.Whether the defendant No.13 has got right to gift the suit schedule property in favour of Defendant No.12?
4.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration and partition as prayed for?
5.To what relief?
5.The following additional issues are also settled for trial:
1)Whether the agreement of sale executed by mother of the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.13 does not bind the plaintiff?
2)Whether the gift deed dated 19.10.2006 executed by D.13 in favour of D.12 is liable to be declared as null and void and does not bind the plaintiff as prayed for?
6.PWs.1 & 2 were examined and Exs. A-1 to A-33 were marked for the plaintiff. DWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-35 were marked for the defendant Nos. 12 and 13.
7.Both learned counsel addressed oral arguments.
8.Issue Nos.1 to 3 and additional Issue Nos.1 and 2:- 8
O.S.No. 15 of 2007
It is the claim of the plaintiff that originally the suit property belongs to his late father Mohd. Abdul Khader and it is of an extent of 194 sq.yards, that his father died in the year 2000 leaving behind his mother, 2 sons Mohd. Abdul
Qader and himself and 2 daughters Khursheedunnisa and Aktharunnisa Begum (Defendant Nos.10 and 11). It is his further claim that his mother Ahmedunnisa died in 2006 and his elder brother Mohd. Abdul Qadeer died in the year 2004 leaving behind him the defendant No.1 as his widow and defendant Nos.2 to 5 as his sons and defendant Nos.6 to 9 as his daughters. It is his further claim that the suit schedule property is the matruka property left by his father in which his mother was having 1/8th share and in the remaining 7/8th share himself and his deceased brother are having 14/48 share each and defendant Nos.10 and 11 are having 7/48th share each and since his elder brother Mohd. Abdul Qadeer died, the defendant Nos.1 to 9 are jointly having 14/48th share. It is his further claim that on 15.12.2006 he came to know that the defendant No.13 purchased 104 sq.yards from his mother under an agreement of sale and in turn defendant
No.13 gifted the same to his son defendant No.12 under registered gift deed but the said gift deed is not binding on him since his mother was entitled to 1/8th share only in the possession of the suit schedule property and hence, the alleged transfer of the property by his late mother in favour of defendant No.13 for more than her 1/8th share is ineffective and defendant Nos.12 and 13 are entitled to 1/8th share only, if at all entitled to.
9
O.S.No. 15 of 2007
On the other hand, the defendant Nos.1 to 11 and 14 to 18 remained exparte and only defendant Nos.12 and 13 are contesting the suit. It is the claim of the defendant Nos.12 and 13 that originally one Sakina Bee who is the mother of Ahmedunnisa Begum was the original owner of an extent of 104 sq.yards out of total extent of 194 sq.yards house property shown as schedule property herein and that 104 sq.yards house was given with H.No.6-3-1185/145 and Sakina Bee during her life time orally gifted the suit property to her only daughter
Ahmedunnisa according to Muslim Law and afterwards AhmedUnnisa sold the said property to defendant No.13 vide an agreement of sale dated 20.12.2004 for a total sale consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- and that the plaintiff or the defendants have no right or share in the said property of 104 sq. yards site.
I have considered the evidence of both the parties adduced in support of their respective pleas. The plaintiff as PW.1 categorically deposes all the plaint averments stating that his late father Mohd. Abdul Khader was the original owner of the suit schedule property. Ex.A.2 Memo issued by the Deputy
Director, Survey & Land Record, Hyderabad dated 13.09.2006 and the Extract of the assessment record of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad Ex.A.3 stood in the name of Mohd. Abdul Khader who is the late father of the plaintiff showing him as the owner of the suit schedule property. Admittedly there are no documents except the tax receipts or the revenue records to prove the ownership of late Mohd. Abdul Khader. Hence, by producing Exs.A.2 and A.3, the plaintiff 10
O.S.No. 15 of 2007
is able to establish that the suit property originally belongs to his late father
Mohd. Abdul Khader.
Now it is for the defendant Nos.12 and 13 to establish their plea that their vendor AhmedUnnisa acquired a house consisting of 104 sq.yards which is part of the suit schedule property herein from her mother Sakina Bee. Admittedly, the defendant Nos.12 and 13 did not produce any document stood in the name of
Sakina Bee in order to prove that Sakina Bee is the original owner of part of the suit schedule property. Though the defendant Nos.12 and 13 claimed that Sakina
Bee orally gifted the suit property in favour of their vendor who is the mother of the plaintiff, they did not adduce any evidence and they did not examine any witness in order to establish the said oral gift of the suit schedule property by
Sakina Bee. Under the Mohammedan Law, oral gift is to be proved by adducing evidence with regard to acceptance of the gift and so also delivery of possession of the gifted property by donor to the donnee but here the defendant Nos.12 & 13 did not establish the aforesaid aspects in order to prove the alleged gift by
Sakeena Bee in favour of AhmedUnnisa.
Another important aspect is that the defendant Nos.12 and 13 are claiming a part of the suit property under Ex.B.1 Agreement of sale said to have been executed by the late mother of the plaintiff on 20.12.2004. Admittedly, this agreement of sale was drafted on Rs.100/- worth of Non-Judicial stamp Paper and under this agreement of sale, possession was delivered by the mother of the plaintiff to the defendant No.13. The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that 11
O.S.No. 15 of 2007
this agreement of sale is liable for stamp duty and penalty since this Ex.B.1 is coupled with delivery of possession of the property covered by it.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant Nos.12 and 13 argued that since the said objection was not taken at the time of marking the document as Ex.B.1, the said objection now at this stage is not tenable. I am of the opinion that as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the defendants, some how, by overlook, my learned predecessor marked the unregistered agreement of sale with delivery of possession of the property as Ex.B.1 and at this stage, I cannot reopen the previous order of my learned predecessor in marking the document and now at this stage, I consider Ex.B1 document in order to ascertain the nature of possession of the property covered by Ex.B.1 only and not the title of the property and as such, the question of stamp duty and penalty is left open and that aspect can be decided whenever this Ex.B.1 document is tendered by defendant Nos.12 & 13 in a suit for declaration of their title over that property.
In Ex.B.1 in page 3, it was recited that “ The vendor herein declare above
said property all link documents and receipts handed over to vendee today.”
From this recital in Ex.B1, it seems that link documents of this unregistered agreement of sale were handed over by the vendor to defendant No.13 at the time of its execution but defendant No.13 did not produce any link document and hence, an adverse inference can be drawn against defendant No.13 with regard to ownership of the property covered by Ex.B1.
12
O.S.No. 15 of 2007
Another important aspect is that in Ex.B1, the vendor of defendant No.13 simply stated that she is the absolute owner and possessor of the property i.e., the house bearing MCH.No. 6-3-1185/145 ad measuring 104 sq.yards which is part of the suit property herein, but she did not state how she acquired title over the said property. If really, the vendor of defendant No.13 acquired the property covered under Ex.B1 through her mother Sakina Bee by way of gift, she should have mentioned that fact in Ex.B1 and in the absence of recitals relating to the flow of title of the vendor of defendant No.13 in Ex.B1, I am of the opinion that the vendor of defendant No.13 by suppressing the facts alienated the property covered by it to defendant No.13. Another important aspect is that defendant
No.13 did not make any enquiries about the ownership of his vendor before purchasing the property covered under Ex.B1 and it seems that he has also not obtained any encumbrance certificate to know the title of his vendor.
DW.1 also in his cross-examination admitted that they have not produced any document to show that the suit property originally belongs to Sakina Bee and that Waheedunnisa Begum is her daughter and Sakina Bee gifted suit property to their vendor. In the absence of proof that the property covered by
Ex.B1 is the absolute property of the vendor of defendant No.13, the version of defendant No.13 that his vendor has got absolute right to Ex.B.1 cannot be believed. Another important aspect is that Ex.B.1 is only an agreement of sale and it does not convey any title to defendant No.13 and there is no evidence to show that defendant No.13 has filed any suit for specific performance of 13
O.S.No. 15 of 2007
contract under Ex.B.1 against his vendor and as such, Ex.B.1 cannot be treated as a title document of defendant No.13 and it can be at the best considered to believe the nature of possession of the property covered by Ex.B1 by defendant
Nos.12 and 13.
From the aforesaid discussion, I have no hesitation to hold that the plaintiff is able to establish that the suit property originally belongs to his late father Mohd. Abdul Khader and on the other hand, defendant Nos.12 and 13 failed to establish that their vendor is absolute owner of the suit property.
When it is considered that the suit property is the absolute property of the late father of the plaintiff and since the late father of the plaintiff died intestate, the plaintiff, his mother and the other defendants except defendant Nos.12 and 13 are entitled to their respective shares in the suit property. Since the late mother of the plaintiff is having a share in the suit property, she is entitled to sell away to the extent of her share.
Under the Mohammedan law, the mother of the plaintiff is entitled to 1/8th share in the suit property and to that extent she has got every right to alienate. PW.1 is also admitting the sale of the suit property to an extent of 1/8th share of his mother to defendant No.13 and the other sharers of the property also did not raise any objection in this regard. Hence, I am of the opinion that Ex.B1
Agreement of sale said to have been executed by mother of the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.13 does not bind the plaintiff and other sharers in respect of the entire suit property and Ex.B1 bind PW.1 and other defendants only to an 14
O.S.No. 15 of 2007
extent of 1/8th of the share of the mother of the plaintiff. Thus, defendant No.13 is entitled for 1/8th share in the suit property which is the share of the mother of the plaintiff purchased by him. Since, defendant No.13 has not acquired any title under Ex.B1 in respect of the entire suit property or the extent of the property covered by Ex.B1, he cannot convey the property covered under Ex.B1 under the gift deed in favour of Defendant No.12. Hence, the gift deed in favour of
Defendant No.12 does not bind the plaintiff and the other sharers for an extent more than 1/8th share of Waheedunnisa Begum.
From the aforesaid discussion, I have no hesitation to hold that Ex.B1 agreement of sale said to have been executed by mother of the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.13 does not bind the plaintiff exceeding an extent of 1/8th share of his mother in the suit property and so also the gift deed dated 19.10.2006 executed by defendant No.13 in favour of defendant No.12 is null and void for the extent exceeding 1/8th share in the suit property. Accordingly, these issue
Nos.1 to 3 and additional issue Nos.1 and 2 are answered.
9. Issue No.4:-
In view of my finding on issues Nos.1 to 3 and additional Issue Nos.1 and 2, the plaintiff is entitled for declaration that Ex.B.1 agreement of sale executed by his late mother in favour of defendant No.13 does not bind him to the extent exceeding 1/8th share in the suit property and so also the gift deed executed by defendant No.13 in favour of defendant No.12 to the extent exceeding 1/8th 15
O.S.No. 15 of 2007
share in the suit property does not bind him and he is also entitled for partition of suit property and for his 14/48th share. Accordingly, this issue is answered.
10. Issue No.5:-
In view of my finding on Issue Nos.1 to 4 and additional Issue Nos.1 and 2, the suit is liable to be decreed. However, it seems that the plaintiff filed the suit claiming that he is in joint possession of the suit property and valued the suit and paid the court fee under Section 34(2) of A.P.C.F. & S.V.Act. In his cross-examination PW.1 admitted that he is not in possession of part of the suit property which covered by Ex.B.1 in which defendant No.12 is now residing.
When the plaintiff is not in joint possession of the suit property and when he is out of possession of the suit property, he has to pay court fee under
Section.34(1) of A.P.C.F. & S.V. Act and not under Section.34(2) of A.P.C.F. &
S.V. Act and hence, the plaintiff has to pay the deficit court fee under
Section.34(1) of A.P.C.F. & S.V. Act. Accordingly, this issue is answered.
Though the plaintiff is disputing the validity of Ex.B.1 agreement of sale in respect of 104 square yards out of total extent of the suit property, he is admitting its binding nature on him with regard to 1/8th share of his mother sold to Defendant No.13 in the total suit property and the other legal heirs of Mohd.
Abdul Khader also did not dispute the said aspect. Since, the defendant No.13 failed to establish that the suit property is the absolute property of one Sakina
Bee who orally gifted to his vendor, it is to be believed that the vendor of defendant No.13 is only having 1/8th share in the suit property and exceeding 16
O.S.No. 15 of 2007
her share of 1/8th, she cannot alienate any extent and to the extent of 1/8th share only Ex.B1 is binding on the plaintiff and other legal heirs of late Mohd. Abdul
Khader. Hence, Ex.B.1 does not bind the plaintiff and other legal heirs of late
Mohd.Abdul Khader exceeding an extent of 1/8th share of the suit property to which the vendor of defendant No.13 is entitled.
According to Mohammedan law when 1/8th share is allotted to the late mother of the plaintiff, then 7/8th share is available for distribution to the 2 sons and 2 daughters of late Mohmmed Abdul Khader. As per Mohammedan Law the daughter is entitled for half the share in the share that was allotted to the son. In other words, under Mohammedan law the son will be allotted with double the share of the daughter.
In the above manner, the entire schedule property is to be divided into 48 shares and out of which 06 shares to be allotted to the late mother of plaintiff, 14 sharestogether to be allotted to defendant Nos.1 to 9 who are the legal heirs of late M.A. Qadeer, the elder son of Late Mohammed Abdul Khader, 14 shares to be allotted to the plaintiff who is the younger son of late
Mohammed Abdul Khader, 07 shares together to be allotted to defendant
Nos.14 to 18 who are the legal heirs of defendant No.10 who is the daughter of late Mohammed Abdul Khader and 07 shares to be allotted to defendant No.11 the second daughter of late Mohammed Abdul Khader. Accordingly, this issue is answered.
17
O.S.No. 15 of 2007
11.R E S U L T: In the result, the suit is decreed and a preliminary decree of partition is passed as under:-
1.The plaint schedule property shall be divided into 48 shares and is to be distributed as under;
a) 06 shares to be allotted to Defendant No.12 who acquired the same from Defendant No.13 who in turn purchased the same from the late mother of plaintiff as her share in the suit property.
b) 14 shares together to be allotted to defendant Nos.1 to 9 who are the legal heirs of late M.A. Qadeer, the elder son of Late Mohammed Abdul Khader.
c) 14 shares together to be allotted to the plaintiff who is the younger son of late Mohammed Abdul Khader.
d) 07 shares to be allotted to defendant Nos.14 to 18 who are the legal heirs of defendant No.10 who is the daughter of late Mohammed Abdul Khader.
e) 07 shares to be allotted to defendant No.11 the second daughter of late Mohammed Abdul Khader.
2.Equities, if any, shall be worked out in the final decree proceedings. Both parties do bear their own costs.
3.Plaintiff to pay the deficit court fee within one month from the date of this decree and on such payment, the office is directed to prepare the decree.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the
open Court on Thursday the 26th day of July, 2018.
Sd/-
FAC - XXVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.
18
O.S.No. 15 of 2007
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined
For Plaintiff For Defendant Nos.12 and 13
PW-1 : Mohd. Abdul Waheed1. DW-1 : Mohd. Jaffer
PW-2 : Fayaz Pasha 2. DW-2 : Mohd. Khaja
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For the Plaintiff :
Ex.A-1:17-10-2006Original Market Value Certificate. Ex.A-2:13-09-2006Attested copy of Memo issued by Deputy Director Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad. Ex.A-3:--Attested copy of extract of the assessment register of MCH from 01-04-1979 to 31-03-2005 Ex.A-4:01-08-2008True extract of Town Survey register of village Somajiguda Ex.A-5:01-04-1955Property Tax Bills Ex.A-6:01-04-1957Property Tax Bills Ex.A-7:01-10-1957Property Tax Bills Ex.A-8:09-01-1959Original Tax Receipt Ex.A-9:01-04-1962Property Tax Bills Ex.A-10:30-10-1962Original Tax Receipt Ex.A-11:01-04-1963Property Tax Bills Ex.A-12:05-04-1965Original Tax Receipt Ex.A-13:15-11-1965Original Tax Receipt Ex.A-14:11-08-1966Original Tax Receipt Ex.A-15:17-04-1967Original Tax Receipt Ex.A-16:09-11-1967Original Receipt Ex.A-17:23-03-1968House Tax Notice Ex.A-18:06-02-1982Electricity Board Original Receipt Ex.A-19:31-07-1982Electricity Board Original Receipt Ex.A-20:01-09-1982Electricity Board Original Receipt Ex.A-21:26-02-1985Water Bill Receipt Ex.A-22:30-05-2003Voter Card of the Plaintiff Ex.A-23:--Xerox copy of Ration Card of the Plaintiff Ex.A-24:09-10-2010Electricity Demand Bill and Receipt Ex.A-25:--Bunch of Electricity Bills and Receipts Ex.A-26:30-10-2006Registered Rental Deed executed between the Plaintiff, his sister-in-law and tenant Karim Khan. Ex.A-27:30-10-2006Registered Rental Deed executed between the plaintiff, his sister-in-law and tenant Mallikarjun.
19
O.S.No. 15 of 2007
Ex.A-28:01-11-2006Registered Rental Deed executed between the plaintiff, his sister-in-law and tenant Md. Jaffer. Ex.A-29:--The Sketch issued by Inspector, Survey and Land Record, Hyderabad District, for T.S.No.39. Ex.A-30:--Bunch of Electricity Bills with Passbook Ex.A-31:--Bunch of Water Bills. Ex.A-32:19-04-2006Death certificate of plaintiff’s mother. Ex.A-33:26-11-2006Copy of the complaint by the plaintiff to SHO.
For the Defendant Nos.12 and 13:
Ex.B-1:20-12-2004Notarized Agreement of Sale Ex. B-2:20-12-2004Original Cash Receipt Ex. B-3:30-06-2006Attested certified copy of Tax Receipt Ex. B-4:19-10-2006Certified copy of Gift Settlement Deed with Plan Ex. B-5:25-05-2006Original Death Certificate Ex. B-6:10-01-2007Original Electricity Bill Ex. B-7:11-01-2007Original Electricity Bill Ex. B-8:06-02-2007Original Electricity Bill Ex. B-9:15-02-2007Original Electricity Bill Ex.B-10:09-03-2007Original Electricity Bill Ex.B-11:14-03-2007Original Electricity Bill Ex.B-12:06-04-2007Original Electricity Bill Ex.B-13:10-04-2007Original Electricity Bill Ex.B-14:09-05-2007Original Electricity Bill Ex.B-15:14-05-2007Original Electricity Bill Ex.B-16:29-03-2008Original Cash Receipt of G.H.M.C. Ex.B-17:--Original Tax receipt for the year 2008-2009 Ex.B-18:23-07-2009Original property tax receipt of G.H.M.C. Ex.B-19:04-08-2010Original Tax Receipt for the year 2010-2011 Ex.B-20:09-10-2010Original Electricity Bill Ex.B-21:09-10-2010Original payment of Electricity Receipt Ex.B-22:09-07-2007Original Electricity Bill Ex.B-23:19-07-2007Original Electricity Payment Ex.B-24:08-08-2007Original Electricity Bill Ex.B-25:14-08-2007Original Electricity Bill Receipt Ex.B-26:09-06-2009Original Electricity Bill Ex.B-27:11-06-2009Original electricity tax receipt Ex.B-28:14-11-2008Original Water department Bill Ex.B-29:17-11-2008Original Water Payment Receipt Ex.B-30:16-12-2008Original Water Bill Ex.B-31:17-12-2008Original Water payment receipt Ex.B-32:21-07-2009Original Water Bill 20
O.S.No. 15 of 2007
Ex.B-33:23-07-2009Original Water payment Receipt Ex.B-34:02-10-2010Original Water Bill Ex.B-35:11-10-2010Original Water Receipt
Sd/-
FAC - XXVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.