MANOHAR REDDY Vs. SYED MOHIUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the unsuccessful plaintiffs in o. S. No. 22/78 on the file of Subordinate judge, Mahaboobnagar. The said suit was instituted praying for the relief of eviction after demolishing the construction made on a portion of the plaint schedule property and also for the relief of injunction restraining defendants 1 to 5 or any of them from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs relating to the area marked in red in the sketch and for mesne profits and also for the other appropriate reliefs.

(2.) THE learned Subordinate Judge, mahaboobnagar, in the light of the respective pleadings of the parties, having settled the issues, recorded the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 4 and D. Ws. 1 to 7, marked Ex. A. 1 to ex. A. 24, Ex. B. 1 to Ex. B. 11 and Ex. X. 1 and on appreciation of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the reliefs prayed for and accordingly dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have preferred the present appeal. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the suit was instituted as against the then Members of the committee and subsequent thereto, the present Members of the Committee had been substituted.

(3.) CONTENTIONS of Sri Suresh: Sri suresh representing Sri Mahipathy Rao, the learned Counsel representing the appellants had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties and the evidence available on record and would maintain that the findings recorded in relation to the genuineness of the gift deed - Ex. B. 10 are not sustainable findings. The Counsel also would maintain that there is no evidence to establish the actual delivery of possession by late Bugga Reddy and hence it may have to be taken that the gift deed - Ex. B. 10 was not acted upon. The Counsel also further pointed out that here is a case where it is stated that the joint family property had been gifted away by the father. The Counsel also would maintain that it cannot be said that a Hindu has an authority under the personal Law to make Such an alienation in favour of Muslim Community. Even otherwise, the Counsel would maintain that it cannot be said that such gift had been made for "pious purpose". Hence, viewed from any angle, the findings recorded by the trial Court cannot be sustained and the appeal to be allowed. The Counsel also relied on certain decisions to substantiate his submissions.