AFZAL BEGUM Vs. AHMED ALI KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the petitioner-plaintiff is against the orders in I. A.No. 1396 of 1996 in O.S.No.1474 of 1996 dated 20-12-1996. The appellant herein filed O.S.No.1474 for declaration and possession of the plaint Schedule I property, portion of the said house against Defendants 1,3 and 4 and for relief of ownership in respect of Schedule HI property against Defendants I to 3. However, the appellant herein prayed for relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the ground portion of the said house.

(2.) The petitioner-plaintiff claims to be the true and absolute owner of the suit schedule property having purchased the same for valuable consideration under registered sale deed dated 20-1-1975. Improvements are stated to have been made by her spending huge amounts. The first defendant is her husband and he was looking after (he suit schedule properly as her trustee. It is also averred that the appellant and the first respondent and their children migrated to United States of America but were frequently visiting the city of Hyderabad and staying in the said house. For Ihe reasons for her absence from the city, the General Power of Attorney deed is stated to have been executed in favour of her brother.

(3.) It is her case thai all of a sudden she was informed by the inlaws of her daughter that the first respondent has sold away and handed over the first floor RCC portion of the said house to strangers. On verification from her well wishers she had come to know that the fust defendant executed sale deed in favour of Defendants 2 and 3 on 1-7-1996 and Defendants3 and 4 on 12-8-1996 alienating the suit schedule property. It is also alleged that during the said verification, she had come to know that the first respondent herein got a registered gift deed executed in his own favour by committing act of forgery and impersonation as if she had executed the gift deed on 2-11 -1986. She had never intended to gifl the said house. The gift deed is the result of forgery and impersonation and therefore, it is a void document. Under those circumstances, the first respondent would not have alienated the property in favour of Respondents 2 to 4 is the case of the appellant. It is under these circumstances, the suit by the petitioner for declaration of title and recovery of possession and also perpetual injunction in respect of the ground floor portion.