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

2025 Supreme(Telangana) 45

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J.
Mohammed Aleemuddin - Appellant
Versus
Masj id E Arafat and Madersa Regd. Soceity - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.412 Of 2024
Decided On : 09-06-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : MD IQBAL ALI JAVID
For the Respondent: MOHD ISMAIL KHAN

The court directed the trial court to expedite the consideration of the vacate application regarding the interim injunction in a dispute over religious property ownership involving community interests.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Sections 91 and 92 - Dispute regarding ownership and management of religious property - Trial Court granted ad interim injunction pending counter by defendants - The appeal was made against the extension of this injunction and the impasse regarding counter submission - The defendants claim inheritance of managing rights from their deceased father, while the plaintiff-society asserts rightful ownership following registration - Disputed questions of fact necessitate further inquiry at the trial level, thus the appeal is disposed of directing the trial court to expedite consideration of the vacate petition. (Paras 5, 9, and 10)

(B) Interim injunction - The scope of interim injunctions is to prevent irreparable injury until the rights are finally determined, especially in cases of contested ownership or management rights over properties of public interest - The plaintiffs' suit for perpetual injunction suggests significant community interest and requires urgent resolution. (Paras 1, 6, and 9)

Facts of the case:
This appeal arises from a suit for injunction by a registered society against defendants claiming inheritance over property used for a mosque, with an ad interim injunction having been granted and extended regularly pending adjudication of pending applications.

Findings of Court:
The legal position surrounding the interim injunction necessitates that the trial court resolve the pending application for vacating the injunction at the earliest, given the disputed ownership issues presented.

Issues: Main issues include the legitimacy of the plaintiff's claims to the property based on the registration of title, the defendants' assertion of inheritance, and the trial court's delay in adjudicating the vacate application.

Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court emphasized the need for expeditious resolution by the trial court due to the nature of the dispute and the community implications involved, without delving into the merits of the case as factual determinations were necessary.

Result: Appeal disposed of with directions for expeditious consideration.

Table of Content
1. summary of the civil miscellaneous appeal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. details of the plaintiff's case and interim orders. (Para 4)
3. defendants' claim and counterarguments. (Para 5)
4. plaintiff's defense and position. (Para 6)
5. court's observations on disputed facts. (Para 7 , 8)
6. court's directive for expeditious resolution. (Para 9)
7. conclusion and closure of pending petitions. (Para 10)

JUDGMENT :

LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed aggrieved by the docket order, dated 20.03.2023, and the consequential extension order dated 29.12.2023 in IA.No.154 of 2023 in OS.No.135 of 2023 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, Vikarabad District.

2. Heard Sri Mohammed Iqbal Ali Javid, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Mohammed Ismail Khan, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The appellants are defendants and respondent is plaintiff in the suit. For convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

4. The brief factual matrix of the case, shorn-off unnecessary details, required for adjudication of the present case, is that the plaintiff filed suit in OS.No.135 of 2023 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Along with the suit, an application in IA.No.154 of 2023 was filed for ad interim injunction. The trial Court vide order dated 20.03.2023 granted ad interim injunction till filing of counter by the defendants and posted the matter to 10.04.2023 and the said order was extended by trial Court from time to time, vide orders dated 29.12.2023 and 11.03.2024. The defendants on 02.04.2024, filed counter along with application vide IA.No.239 of 2024 to vacate the interim order and the said application is pending consideration. Aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal is filed.

5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants submitted that their father- late Azeemuddin along with two others i.e., Mohd. Sajjad Hussaina and Khaja Shareef has purchased an extent of land admeasuring 408 square yards under registered sale deed bearing document No.934/1996 dated 04.05.1996 and constructed mosque in the name of Masjid-E-Arafath for use of muslim community. Learned counsel further submitted that in fact, after death of their father, they inherited the right and interest in Muthawalliship in the managing committee of Masjid-E-Arafath and Madarsa and that the plaintiff-society has no role in the affairs of the managing committee of Masjid-E-Arafath and Madarsa. He further submitted that the plaintiff-respondent society was formed by few people who are unconnected with Madarsa and filed a suit by misrepresenting the facts and obtained injunction against the defendants and therefore, the defendants are being deprived of managing and offering prayers at the suit schedule property and in fact, the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Learned counsel further contended that the trial Court despite filing counter and vacate stay petition is not adjudicating the said application, therefore, the present Appeal is filed to vacate the interim orders.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff contended that the respondent-society is a registered society and has purchased the suit schedule property in the name of three individuals, who are respectable elderly persons in the community and constructed a mosque by name Masjid-E-Arafath in the year 2002, by collecting donations and contributions from individuals, but the defendants are interfering with the affairs of the respondent-society by falsely claiming that they inherited the suit schedule property from their father. Learned counsel further submitted that several panchayats were held, however, the defendants are threatening the respondent-society therefore, suit was filed for perpetual injunc

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 Back to top