SHANAVAS Vs. KHADEEJA MUHAMMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dismissal of I.A.No.1/2024, an application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the Additional Sub Court, North Paravur, is under challenge in this appeal filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.36/2024 on the files of the said court.

(2.) The suit was one for declaration that the partition deed No.595/2016 of Alangatt S.R.O (Ext.A2) has been created by perpetrating fraud, misrepresentation and illegality; and seeking partition of the suit property. The suit property belonged to Abdul Salam, the deceased father of the plaintiff. After the death of the plaintiff's father, the said property devolved upon the plaintiff, his mother and siblings and also upon the mother of the deceased by way of intestate succession. It is stated that the mother of the plaintiff's father obtained 1/6 share over the suit property as per the relevant provisions of intestate succession of Muslim law. The above said ? share obtained by the mother of plaintiff's father was said to have been gifted (vide Ext.A1) to the husband of the 1 st defendant, who was the direct brother of deceased father of the plaintiff. The defendants 2 and 3 are the son and daughter of the 1 st defendant.

(3.) The respondents in I.A.No.1/2024 (defendants 1 to 3) opposed the suit and application contending that there was absolutely no bona fides in it. According to the respondents, the plaintiff, who was a party to the partition deed under challenge through his power of attorney holder, cannot now challenge the said partition deed and raise a contention that it is vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation. It is the further contention of the respondents that the challenge raised by the plaintiff against the above partition deed of the year 2016, is hopelessly barred by limitation. According to the respondents, the draft of the aforesaid partition deed was sent to the petitioner before getting it executed, and the proceedings towards registration were initiated only after obtaining his concurrence. With the aforesaid contentions, the respondents resisted the request for temporary injunction of the plaintiff.