LAWS(APH)-1977-11-22

MOHD RAHEEMUDDIN Vs. AAYESHA BEGUM

Decided On November 11, 1977
MOHD.RAHEEMUDDIN Appellant
V/S
AAYESHA BEGUM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the 1st defendant is against the judgment and decree dated 16th October, 1975 passed by the Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad in A. S. No. 28 of 1974 whereby the learned Judge reversed the judgment of the Second Asst. Judge, City Civil Court in O. S. No. 149 of 1972.

(2.) Respondents 1 and 2 are plaintiffs in O.S. No. 149 of 1972. That suit was instituted against the appellant, the 1st defendant and two other defendants (a) for a declaration that the 1st plaintiff or in the alternative the 2nd plaintiff is the absolute owner of the house bearing Municipal No. 17-6-41 inclusive of the open land and compound wall measuring in all 416-78 square yards situated outside Babirpura, Hyderabad; and (b) for restraining by perpetual injunction defendants 1 and 2 or their agents or servants and persons claiming under them from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

(3.) The case for the plaintiffs is that the suit house originally belonged to one by name Halim Bi. On her death, her daughter Noorunissa Begum became the owner. A suit was filed by one named Sharifunnisa Begum against the said Halim Bi who died pending suit and she was represented by her legal representative Noorunnissa Begum. In that suit O.S. No. 44/1 of 1953 on the file of the II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, Sharifunnissa Begum obtained a decree and put it in execution by filing Execution Petition No. 113 of 1961 and in the said execution petition the suit house was purchased in Court auction by the 1st defendant on 24th November, 1961 for an amount of Rs. 2950 with the money belonging to and furnished on behalf of the 1st plaintiff. That is Exhibit B. 5. As the appellant was closely related to the plaintiff and the 1st plaintiff's hushand was apprehensive of legal difficulties being a Government servant, the 1st plaintiff got the suit house purchased in the Court-auction in the name of the appellant, the 1st defendant.