SYED ALI MOOSVI Vs. ZAINULABEDDIN MOOSVI @ TAQI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these Civil Revision Petitions, common question of law and facts are involved, and the parties are also same, hence they are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THESE Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by orders dated 25-07-2012 passed I.A.Nos.522 of 2012, 523 of 2012 and 521 of 2012 in O.S.No.60 of 2007 on the file of the Court of IX Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court at Hyderabad (I.As).

(3.) THE plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants who are his own brothers, for partition of the plaint schedule property i.e., House bearing No.8-2-334/32/34, "Golden Glory Guest House " situated at Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, into three plots and allot one such share to him. The claim of the plaintiff is as follows: He and the defendants have taken up many ventures jointly. In that process they took up the work of construction of a guest house at Banjara Hills for which the plaintiff contributed amounts in accordance with his share. During the progress of the work, the first defendant assured that whatever amounts were taken from the plaintiff for the construction of the guest house would be returned to him with interest. Accordingly in that context he prepared a document and handed over the same to the plaintiff. In fact the document contains typed and handwritten block letter parts respectively. Below the typed part or parts therein the first defendant in his own handwriting wrote that the said amount or amounts would be paid as soon as Khairtabad lands were sold or the plan for constructing the complex was settled and when they would get their share of amounts therefrom. The document also contains the statement that the project at 1) Aushapur land, 2) Moula Ali Land and 3) M/s. Ramada Crockery will be settled as per the will and wish of the plaintiff and in continuation of that, the first defendant wrote in his own handwriting "But all four brothers should agree with your decision, otherwise any of the four brothers can discuss the matter, before the settlement ". The document comes within the definition of 'document ' as defined under Section 3 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (for short 'the Act '). But the defendants have gone back and have been denying the payment. Therefore, the plaintiff has to establish the contents of the document which is related to the main issue framed in the suit.