SYEDA AFSAR QUADRI Vs. SYED SARWAR BIABANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree of the VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad made in O.S.No.1238 of 1996, dated 21-09-2001 whereby the suit filed for partition has been decreed partly in respect of 'A' schedule properties as per the terms of Ex.B-7 and also for division of golden jewellery kept with 3rd defendant by the father of parties in the ratio of 1/5th for the plaintiff and 2/5th each for defendants 1 and 2, and with further direction to the defendants 1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- to the plaintiff within two weeks.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as their array before the trial Court.

(3.) Plaintiff is the sister of defendants 1 and 2 and they are the children of late Syed Ghulam Ahmed Biabani and Mrs. Amtul Karim, who died on 6-11-1993 and 17-11-1989 respectively. The plaintiff instituted the above suit alleging that her parents left Matruka of immoveable and moveable properties at Hyderabad and Khazipet, Warangal as detailed in the annexed schedules of properties, and that on the death of the parents, those properties are devolved upon the three children i.e. the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2. In addition to those properties, their father kept golden ornaments in the custody of his maternal nephew i.e. defendant No.3, and that the said ornaments are part of matruka and liable to be divided among the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 as per the Mahomedan Law. It is also alleged that their father left his bank account in the State Bank of Hyderabad, Debeerpura branch at Hyderabad, and that the defendants 1 and 2 be directed to disclose the withdrawal, if any, made by them from the said account. According to the plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2 and their father entered into an agreement of sale of dry land of Ac.5.37 gts. in various survey numbers on 9-6-1993 in favour of defendant No.4 for a consideration of Rs.7,87,500/-, and that defendant No.4 paid an advance of Rs.2 lakhs to the father of the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2, and that she is entitled to her legal share in the balance sale consideration of Rs.5,87,500/- due and payable to her father. The plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 belong to Hanafi School of Muslim law and their respective shares are 1/5th to plaintiff and 2/5th to each of the defendants 1 and 2. When the plaintiff called upon the defendants 1 and 2 through legal notice dated 2-11-1995 for mutual settlement and apportionment of Matruka properties as per their legal shares, they refused to do so. Defendant No.1 denied the right of the plaintiff in the joint Matruka property while the defendant No.2 got returned the legal notice through the postman. Defendant No.4, who received the legal notice did not turn up and she learnt that he is making underhand dealings with defendants 1 and 2. Hence, the suit.