MOHAMED UMAR SEENI ARIFF KHAN Vs. TANZIA BANO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four Misc. First Appeals are preferred independently by the defendants in the suit, assailing the legality and propriety of the common order dtd. 16/10/2024 passed by the X Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Benglauru, sitting at CCH No.26 on I.A.No.1, 2, 4 and 6 filed in OS No.7645/2023. By the impugned order, the trial Court allowed the applications filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC thereby, granted temporary injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff or alienating or encumbering the suit B-schedule property and simultaneously dismissed the application filed by the defendants under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC seeking to vacate the said injunctive order.

(2.) The factual matrix reveal that, the respondent herein by name Mrs. Tanzia Bano alias Tanzia Banu filed a suit for declaration, partition and injunction against the appellants, claiming to be the legally wedded wife of late Imran Khan M.S., the son of appellants/defendants. Plaintiffs' principal contention is that, she, during the subsistence of her marriage transferred substantial amounts both in Indian and US Currencies to her husband's account and those funds were subsequently utilized by the first defendant i..e her father-in-law to acquire the suit schedule property. She has further averred that, suit property was agreed to be purchased in the name of defendant no.1 merely as a matter of convenience, since the plaintiff and her husband were then residing abroad, with an assurance that, it would eventually be transferred back to them. It is also the categorical assertion of the plaintiff that, she has remained in possession of the suit schedule property even after demise of her husband on 20/6/2023 and that attempts are being made by the defendants to illegally dispossess her and to alienate the property.

(3.) The appellants have disputed the marital status of the plaintiff with their deceased son and have categorically denied her claim over the property or her possession thereof. They contend that, the purchase of the property was made entirely from the funds of defendant no.1 and that the plaintiff at best had been permitted to temporarily stay in the property during the period of her husband's illness and had no legal or possessory right therein.