Hazrath Habeeb Mujtaba Al Aidroos vs Habeeb Mohammed Al Aidroos
2021 Latest Caselaw 4651 Tel

           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

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

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