Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
P.Fatima Bee vs P.Abdul Hameed on 6 April, 2022
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
MAIN CASE NO: S.A.No.150 of 2022
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl.N Date ORDER OFFICE
o. NOTE
06.04.2022 BSB, J
Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
The suit is filed for declaration of title and
for permanent injunction. The suit was
dismissed. Having aggrieved by the same, the
plaintiff preferred the appeal and the same was
also dismissed. Now, the plaintiff preferred the
second appeal raising the following substantial
questions of law. The learned counsel for the
appellant mainly submitted that the first
appellate Court has framed insufficient and
improper points for consideration and failed to
properly appreciate the evidence on record,
particularly Exs.A.1 and A.2 which are
unregistered partition deeds which can be
looked into for the purpose of serving of status
and nature of possession but they were ignored
and also that they failed to appreciate that the
suit schedule property is out of the properties in
respect of which the rest of the settlements
among the members of the other branch family.
A. Whether the findings arrived by the lower
appellate court on the points that arose for
consideration of appeal are proper?
B. Whether the judgment of the appellate court
is correct in law when the Learned Appellate
Judge failed to frame points for
determination in the case as required under
order 41 Rule 31 of CPC particularly no point
was framed with regard to the plaintiffs right
title and possession under the registered gift
deed dt.02.02.2005?
C. Whether the appellate court is right in
coming to the conclusion that the
unregistered partition deeds dt.14.04.1972
and 31.08.1999 marked as exhibits A1 and A2
without any objection, are inadmissible in
evidence and that there could not been a
division of joint family properties in the
Muslim community?
D. Whether the appellate court is right in
coming to the conclusion that the concept of
joint family has no application to the facts of
the case though no such plea was raised by
either of the parties?
E. Whether the appellate court is right, correct
in law when the court below failed to
consider the law relating to the partition
deeds which are un-registered in view of the
law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex court?
F. Whether the court below is right in ignoring
the effect of exhibit A5 an award passed in
O.S.No.219 of 1989 on the file of the Principal
Sub-Judge, Ananthapuram under which a
partition was effected through a compromise
in between the family members of the DW2
which supports the case of the appellant/
Plaintiff?
In view of the questions of law raised, it is
a fit case to admit the appeal.
ADMIT.
Notice to respondents.
Post on 28.04.2022.
Learned counsel for the appellant is
permitted to take out personal service of notice
to the respondents through RPAD and file proof
thereof.
_________________
B.S.BHANUMATHI,J
PNV
