Hazrath Habeeb Mujtaba Al Aidroos vs Habeeb Mohammed Al Aidroos

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
                            AND
           THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA

       CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.522 of 2021

                        Date:29.12.2021

Between:

Hazrath Habeeb Mujtaba Al Aidroos,
S/o. Hazrath Habeeb Jaffer Al Aidroos,
Age 67 years, Occ: Priest, R/o.H.No.20-4-448,
Fateh Darwaza, Hussainialam, Hyderabad.

                                         .....Appellant/Plaintiff

     And

Habeeb Mohammed Al Aidroos,
S/o. Hazrath Habeeb Jaffer Al Aidroos,
Age 39 years, Occ: social service,
R/o.H.No.20-4-448, Fateh Darwaza,
Hussainialam, Hyderabad & others.


                                                .....Respondents

The Court made the following:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO AND THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.522 of 2021 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Naveen Rao) Heard Sri A. Manik Prabhu, learned counsel for the appellant.

2. Shorn of details, plaintiff instituted O.S.No.716 of 2019 in the Court of V Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, praying to declare the plaintiff as absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land in Sy.No. 733, 736, 738 and 741, admeasuring Acs.3.10 guntas of Mankhal Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and to pass decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

3. The plaintiff filed I.A.No.709 of 2019 in O.S.No.716 of 2019, under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code, praying to grant temporary injunction. On contest, the Trial Court having found that defendant No.1 is the owner of the land and he in turn executed sale deeds in favour of other defendants, declined to grant injunction.

4. The plea raised by plaintiff was that though property was registered in the name of his son - defendant No.1, he invested money to purchase property in issue and later defendant No.1 executed unregistered gift deed in his favour. According to plaintiff, in recognition of the investment made by him and by virtue of the unregistered gift deed executed by defendant No.1, he became the -3- absolute owner of the suit schedule property. This plea of the plaintiff is opposed by defendant No.1, by disputing the alleged gift deed, stated to have been executed by him in favour of his father i.e., plaintiff.

5. The issue whether there was an unregistered gift deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff and whether such unregistered gift deed is valid and by virtue of the said unregistered gift deed, the property has fallen to the hands of the plaintiff are matters which require consideration by the Trial Court, after conducting of trial.

6. Having regard to the assertion of the defendant No.1 and sale transactions made by him in favour of the other defendants, we do not see any error in the decision of the Trial Court in refusing to grant injunction, warranting our interference. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

___________________ P. NAVEEN RAO, J ____________________ P. SREE SUDHA, J Date: 29.12.2021 PT -4- THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO AND THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.522 OF 2021 Date:29.12.2021 PT