SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

P.NAVEEN RAO, G.RADHA RANI
Mohammed Mohamood – Appellant
Versus
Syed Anwar Mustafa – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:B. Madhavi, Advocate

ORDER

Dr. G. Radha Rani, J.—Heard Ms. B. Madhavi, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Aadesh Varma, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent.

2. From the facts on record and as noticed by the trial Court, to the extent relevant are as under:—

(i) According to the 1st respondent, while he was working outside the Country, his wife was living in Hyderabad. He was sending the money earned by him to his wife to invest the same in landed property. By the money provided by him she purchased house property bearing H.No.8-1-366/A/72, admeasuring 200 Sq yards consisting of ground + two upper floors situated in Janaki Nagar, Tolichowki, Hyderabad, but it was registered in her name. When the 1st respondent returned to India he came to know this fact.

3. Contending that his request to register the property in his name was not agreed by his wife and she tried to alienate the property, the 1st respondent instituted O.S.No.1476 of 1997 in the Court of I-Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. He prayed to grant decree of declaration that he was the owner of suit schedule property and also sought injunction restraining the defendant i.e., his wife from alienating or encumberi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top