RIYAZUNNISSA Vs. MOHD. BIN SALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant who is 2nd respondent in I.A.No.667 of 2018 and 2nd defendant in O.S.No.987 of 2017 on the file of IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Being aggrieved by the Order of IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in the above referred interlocutory application, dtd. 2/11/2021 whereunder the trial Court directed the parties to the suit to maintain status quo during the pendency of the suit, the petitioner/2nd respondent/defendant No.2 filed this appeal on the following grounds.

(2.) The trial Court without following the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts' wherein grant of status quo was deprecated passed the impugned order without defining the present state of suit schedule property. The trial Court failed to consider the certified copies of cancellation deed which was registered as document No.297 of 2006, dtd. 30/1/2006 where under the gift deed executed in favor of Mumtaz Subhani Charitable Trust, bearing document No.3125 of 2004 was cancelled and as the said cancellation was not challenged by any party, much less the trusties of the said Trust, the same has become final, therefore, the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff, does not lie.

(3.) The appellants have claimed that the trial Court failed to consider the cancellation of the said deed, thereby failed to consider the relevant documents for the purpose of determining the question in the suit, amounts to misreading of the evidence. The trial Court failed to consider that the respondents are only passersby and they have no right, title or interest or locus standi to file the suit. They do not come under the definition of interested persons as defined in Sec. 92 of C.P.C. nor can they claim any interest in the affairs of the said Trust. They never worked for the Trust for the welfare nor have they participated in the Trust meetings. Thereby, they are totally strangers. As such, the suit filed by the respondents is not sustainable under law. The trial Court failed to consider that the respondents have no prima facie case. The balance of convenience lies in favour of the appellants/defendants as the schedule "A" property is under construction and in possession of the defendant Nos.8 to 15. If, those defendants are injected from alienating or modification of the property, it will cause irreparable loss when compared with the case of respondent/plaintiff.