GOVERNMENT OF HYDERABAD Vs. SYED ATHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal on behalf of the Director of Endowments against the Judgment and Decree, dated 27th Bahman, 1357 F. of the First Judge, City Civil Court, awarding the respondent the possession of mulgi bearing Municipal No. 6545/6546 situate in Maharaj Gunj, Hyderabad, and mesne profits amounting to Osmania Sicca Rs.960 and future mesne profits at the rate of Rs.10 per mensem till the date of the recovery of possession.

(2.) The respondent's case, as set up in the plaint was that the mulgi in dispute was mortgaged potsessorily with one Zahuruddin in the year 1300 F., on whose death the mortgagee's right devolved on his brother Wazirudin. On the latter's death in a suit brought for the distribution of his assets the mulgi in question fell to the share of Mahbub Begam. Mahbub Begum in her turn sold it to the repondent on 8th Thir, 1342 F., by a registered sale-deed (page 13 of the printed copy). One Mahbub Ali attached the mulgi in execution of his decree in 1346 F., with the result that objection petitions were filed not only by the respondent but also by one Bhikamdas. The objection filed by Bhikamdas was allowed and the respondent withdrew the petition with liberty to file a fresh petition as and when the occa. ion arose. Being fortified with the order passsed on his objection petition, Bhikamdas applied for possession of the mulgi but the Court of Darul Qaza in view of the fact that the respondent was in its possession refused the petition and directed him to bring a suit for possestion.

(3.) After the respondent purchased the disputed mulgi in 1342 F., proceedings Were started as to the endowed nature of the disputed mulgi in 1343 F., and the Director of the Endowments ordered it to be registered as such in the Register for Endowments on 18th Meher, 1345 F., and thereafter by removing the respondent's lock forcibly took possession of it on 27th Khurdad, 1347 F. Before approaching the Court of law the respondent moved the Endowment Authority for redress but without success. Consequently, he brought the p-esent suit for relief as stated above. The appellant in reply denied or pleaded want of knowledge with respect to all the material allegations made in the plaint and raised the plea that the proper party to the suit was the Government and not the appellant and since the necessary requirement of Act V of 1320 F. had not been complied with, the suit was not maintainable. There was a further plea that the allegations in the plaint were vague and not clear as to whether the suit was against the Government or against a Public Officer in his official capacity.