Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
Alladin Charities and Zakat Wakf, Secunderabad – Appellant
Versus
Mohammed Saleem @ Mohammed Wajid Ali – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J.
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant, being aggrieved by the order, dated 29.01.2019 passed in E.A.No.94 of 2016 in E.P.No.4 of 2016 in O.S.No.2204 of 2012 by the learned VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (for short “the trial Court”).
2. The appellant herein is the claim petitioner, while respondent No.1 is the Decree Holder/plaintiff and respondent No.2 is the Judgment Debtor/defendant before the trial Court. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court.
3. To avoid confusion, the pleadings in O.S.No.2204 of 2012 and the result thereon is discussed in the first instance.
4. The case of the plaintiff before the trial Court is that the father of defendant late Ali Ahmed had entered into an agreement of sale in respect of the property bearing old Municipal No.634 (new Municipal No.21-1-1098/9/10/11), situated at Rikabgunj, Pathergatti, Hyderabad, admeasuring 375 Sq.yards under an agreement of sale dated 23.02.2001, having received the entire sale consideration of Rs.8,00,000/- on the said date. It is further submitted by the plaintiff that the father of
Order 21, Rule 58 CPC deals with adjudication of claims or objections with regard to properties attached either directly or indirectly between the parties to the proceedings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Waqf Act 1995, the limitation period for recovery of Waqf property, and the concept of adverse possession.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of Order 21 Rule 58 and Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC, emphasizing the maintainability of a claim petition after com....
A concurrent finding of facts affirmed by appellate courts must be based on evidence; mere possession without title does not confer rights against established ownership.
The executing court cannot deliver possession without a final decree, and unregistered deeds do not confer valid rights; dispossession without due process is illegal.
In a suit for declaration of title, the plaintiff must independently prove ownership, and unable to establish a substantial question of law results in dismissal of the appeal under Section 100 of the....
Possession at the time of attachment is critical for claims; ex-parte decrees obtained collusively are not binding on decree holders.
In a suit for declaration of title, the plaintiff must prove ownership; failure to do so, coupled with defendants' adverse possession, results in dismissal.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
