VISHAMODH GOWDHUJA SAMAJ Vs. MAHBOB BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Iqbal Begum-the plaintiff in O.S.No.436 of 1987 on the file of the II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, had originally instituted a suit for perpetual injunction O.S.No.l 19 of 1986 on 26-5-1986 on the file of the Vacation Court which was transferred to the III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and renumbered as O.S.No.1737 of 1986 and further transferred to the II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and numbered as O.S.No.436 of 1987. The said suit for perpetual injunction was dismissed by the learned Judge leaving open the question of title to be agitated by the parties, in other words, the question of title was left undecided in the said suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the unsuccessful plaintiff preferred A.S.No.401 of 2000 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and the same was transferred to this Court to be heard along with CC.C.A.No.106 of 1996 and C.C.C.A. No. 126 of 1996, the appeals preferred as against the order made in a final decree proceeding. Inasmuch as C.C.C.A. No. 106 of 1996 is not being prosecuted, the same had been dismissed for default today, but, however, C.C.C.A. No. 126 of 1996 was heard at length. The appellant in C.C.C.A. No. 126 of 1996 who came on record in the final decree proceeding in O.S. No.59 of 1960, in LA. No.292 of 1995 and in I.A.No.160 of 1983 is the defendant in O.S. No.436 of 1987. One G. Yadagiri filed C.M.P. No. 14506 of 1999 in C.C.C.A. No. 126 of 1996 under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC to be impleaded as party on the ground that he purchased the property from Gousia Begum, the first defendant in the suit, after the preliminary decree was passed in O.S.No.59 of 1960 but, however with the permission of the Court. In the light of the facts and circumstances, the said C.M.P. No. 14506 of 1999 in C.C.C.A.No.l26 of 1996 is hereby ordered.

(2.) Submissions of Sri Mahmood Ali. Sri Mahmood Ali, the learned Counsel representing the contesting respondents in C.C.C.A. No. 126 of 1996 and also the appellant in transfer C.C.C.A.No.44 of 2002 made the following submissions.

(3.) The learned Counsel would maintain that it is unfortunate that the property which is said to have been purchased by Yadagiri instead of being allotted to the share of Gousia Begum had been allotted to the share of Iqbal Begum, The learned Counsel also would submit that in the light of the stand taken by the purchaser Yadagiri, the allotment of property to Iqbal Begum may not be just as her rights would be prejudiced. The Counsel also explained that there are certain problems with certain of the tenants in occupation of certain portions. The learned Counsel had also explained the other difficulties involved in the matter. While further elaborating his submissions, the Counsel would maintain that even if Iqbal Begum had filed a suit for perpetual injunction simplicitor, the question of title may have to be incidentally gone into, but, however, this question was left open virtually driving the parties to yet another litigation. The learned Counsel also would submit that in view of the fact that ample documentary evidence had been placed before the Court, it would be just and proper even to decide the question of title even if the suit is for mere injunction. The Counsel however, would maintain that in view of the fact that certain legal complications may crop up, it would be just and proper to permit the plaintiff in O.S.No.436 of 1987 referred to supra, the appellant in C.C.C.A.No.44 of 2002 to amend the plaint suitably and to further agitate the matter.