The High Court · 2025

Judgment

These two appeais are hled aggrieved by the common judgment and decree dated 06.12.2018 passed in O.S.No.2273 of 2O11 and O.S.No.132 of 2O13 by the learned VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial CourtJ.

For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.2273 of 2O11 is that she is a native of Hydcrabad but was married to the citizen of United Arab Emirates (UAE) and has been permanently residing at Ras Al Khaimah, Sharja, UAE and that she is.the absolute owner and possessor of the house No.2-2-7619, Turabnagar, Slum area, Amberpet, Hyderabad admeasuring 96.7 Sq.yards by virtue of gift deed executed by her mother. It is her case that originally the said property was ipurchased by her mother Smt. Hameena Bee under a registered sale deed vide document No.2591 of 1961 dated 12.O9.1961 and that during her life time she has gifted by way of Hiba under a registered gift deed dated 25.03.1988 vide I l i I l .t- \ ETD,,J LCCA-191_192-2019 2 document No. 1714 of 19gg to the plaintiff and ever since then, the plaintiff has been in possession of the property. That the defendant is her younger sister and that after the death of her mother in 1990, she has alloi.ved the defendant who was in poor financial condition to stay in a portion of the suit schedule premises consisting of two rooms covered by tin shed and that since then the defendant has been staying in that portion. The plaintiff has kept an RCC portion of two roorns for her personal use and that one room with a tin shed has been glven on rent and the defendant was asked to collect the rent for paying the eiectricit5r and water consumption charges to GHMC but the defendant has collected the rent and put it to her own use and has not paid the water and electricitlz charges due to which the water connection also has been disconnected. tt is the further case of the plaintiff that the defendant was having a targe family to maintain i.e. she had one son and six daughters and that her husband died with ill_health and that the defendant,s husband was an auto driver and from the beginning they l,rad meager earnings and since the defendant is her own sister, she used to help her financially and that during the life time of plaintiffs husband, he used to help the defendant and the plaintiff also paid monthly maintenance to the defendant. It is further averred ( ETD,J cccA 191_192,2019 3 by the plaintiff that her husband has purchased a house in the name of defendant vide municipal No-2-3-647 lK/2, Prem Nagar, Amberpet, Hyderatrad, during his life time to help the defendant and that a declaration was executed by the plaintiffs husband which was accepted by the defendant and that the defendant has signed as a witness. The plaintiff has further averred that she used to make periodical visits to Hyderabad from UAE and that once she visited Hyderabad to perform the marriage of defendant's third daughter which was held on 26.07.2011 and that the piaintiff has borne the marriage expenses and that she carried the entire jewellery i.e. gold worth 66 tulas from UAE and after the marriage the plaintift has planned to visit Sangareddy on 28-O8.201 1 to meet her maternal uncle's family and while leaving for Sangareddy, she placed her luggage along with the jewellery box in the custody of the defendant and that on return from Sangareddy, she immediately left to UAE and on reaching UAE she has realized that the jewellery box and cash was missing in her luggage and immediately, she called the defendant and enquired about the box but the defendant feigned ignorance' Immediately, the plaintiff again came down to Hyderabad and enquired and requested the defendant to return the gold ornaments but defendant has refused to return and hence, she ETD,J cccA 191 192 2019 4 \1 r, lodged a complaint before the SHO, Amberpet vide crime No.362 ol 2011 under Section 380 of IpC on 16.09.2011. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant,s elder daughter and her husband are having criminal back ground. It is further averred that the defendant failed to vacate the premises though the plaintiff has issued a legal notice dated 27.09.2011 asking her to vacaLe the suit schedule property and that she has also mentioned in the said notice that if she fails to vacate the premises, she has [o pay a sum of Rs.4,OOO/- per month as damages along with mesne prohts and that the defendant has received the nolice but has neither given reply nor vacated the suit schedule premiscs. Hence, the suit.

4. The defendant frled written statement clenying the averments of the plaint but for admitting the fact that Ameena Bee is their mother and that the suit schedule property was originally purchased by her. It is contended by the defendant that the gift deed is created by the plainriff and that it is a sham document and is not binding on them. It is further contended by the defendant that their mother has informed them during her life time that the RCC portion will be allotted to the share of plaintiff and the three tin shed rooms were allotted to the share of defendant and that the plaintiff never served their mother as ETD,.' cccA 191 192 2019 5 she used to reside at UAE, while the defendant has served their mother when she was bedridden and that ever since the death of their mother, the defendant has been residing in the present portion which comes under her share. She further contended that in 1995 plaintiff wanted to evict them from the suit schedule premises but with the intervention of the elders, she could resolve the difficulty. She denied the averment that the plaintiffs husband purchased a property at Prem Nagar, Amberpet in her name and further has denied the execution of the declaration. She further contended that the plaintiff never stayed here and that whenever the plaintiff comes to Hyderabad, herself and her daughter used to offer household services to her. She further denied the allegations of theft of gold ornaments and that the plaintiff has been harassing them by filing the said case, thus, they have hled a complaint before the Human Rights Commission (HRC) vide HRC No.2085l2Oll, and that HRC has given directions to the ACP to give protection to the defendant and her children vide order dated O3.O2.2O12. She further submitted that she is a poor lady and that her husband passed away on

09.11.2010 and that she performed the marriages of three daughters and that three more daughters are living with her and that if she is evicted from the suit scheclule premises, she will not EID,J cccA 191 192 2019 C' 6 have any sheiter to stay and that she being the share holder in the property, she cannot be evicted from the suit schedule premises.

5. During the pendency of the above suit O.S.No.2273 ol 2Ol 1, the defendant has hled O.S.No.132 of 2Ol3 seeking partition. The case of the plaintiff in O.S.No-132 of 2O13 is that the plaintiff and the defendant are the daughters of Ameena Bee and that the defendant is her elder sister and thal both ol them succeed to the property of Ameena Bee. It is the casc of thc plaintiff that their mother is the owner and possessor of house bearing No.2-2-76/9, admeasuring 96.7 Sq.Yards, situated at Turab Nagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad, which was purchased by her vide document No.2591 of 1961 dated First Baheman, i357 F' and that their mother died on 30.08.1990 leaving behind herself and the defendant. Therefore, both of them are entitled to the suit schedule property. It is further averred that the RCC portion was allotted to the defendant and the tin shed portion consisting of three rooms were allotted to the plaintiff in fronL of the elders. I She further contended that she has been paying the electricity and water charges from time to time and has been residing in the said portion peacefully. She further averred that in 1995, the defendant tried to evict her from the premises and that with the /. ETD,I cccA 191 192 2019 7 help of neighbours and friends she could overcome the said difliculty. It is alleged by the plaintiff that after her husband's death on 09. 1 1 .201 I , the defendant has been creating problems to usurp the share of the plaintiff. She further contended that as the defendant was living in Dubai, she used to visit India rarely once in a year or once in two years and that whenever she visited India, she used to stay in her portion and that once she visited on 16.07.2011 and she left to Dubar on 02.09.2011 and immediately, she came down on 03.09.2011 and alleged that she lost her gold ornaments and fited a false case against them. The other averments in the plaint are similar to the averments raised in the written statement in O.S.No.2273 of 20 t 1. It is her case that she requested for partition of schedule properly but the defendant was not coming forward to effect the partition and to allot her share and that she has learnt that the defendant is making attempts to alienate the suit schedule property to third parties and hence, she has filed the suit for partition.

6. The defendant has hled written statement denying averments of the plaint and further contended that the present suit is liled as a counterblast to her suit filed for eviction vide O.S.No.2273 of 2O11. She has reiterated the averments of her ETD,J cccA 191 192 2019 8 k--" ( .\I t.r - ('\ plaint O.S.No .2273 of 2017, apart from denying the specific allegations made by the defendant.

7. Based on the pleadings in O.S.No.2273 of 2O11, rhe trial Court framed the tollowing issues: " 1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to evict the defendant from the suit schedule propert5r? 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the future mesne profits at Rs.4,000/_ per month? 3) To what reliep" B. Based on the pleadings in O.S.No.132 of 20 13, rhe Court framed the following issues: "1) Whether the plaintiff and defendant are in joint possession of the suit schedule propert5r? 2l Whether the mother of the defendant gifted the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant through a registered gift deed? 3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for preliminary decree of partition as prayed for, if so what are the shares to which the plaintiff and defendant is entitled to? 4) To what relieL:" 9 The trial Court has conducted a joint trial ofboth the suits, wherein PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.Al to A6 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff and on the other hand, ETD,] cccA 191 192 2019 9 defendant got examined DWs 1 and 2 and Exs.B1 to 835 are marked.

10. Based on the evidence on record, the trial Court has dismissed O.S.No. 132 of 2Ol3 f,rled for partition and decreed O.S.No.2273 of 2011 directing the defendant to vacate the suit schedule property and deliver vacant possession within two months and also has directed to pay an amount of Rs.4,OOO/- per month for staying in the suit schedule property from the date of filing suit tili delivery of possession. Aggrieved by the said common judgment and decree, the present appeals are hled by Smt. Rafia Pasha, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.132 of 2013 and delendant in O.S.No.2273 of 201 1 .

11. Heard the submissions of Smt.D.Padmavahi, Iearned counsel for appellant No.1, Sri J.C.Francis, learned counsel for appellant No.3 and Sri M.Vijay Kumar Goud, learned counsel for thc respondent.

12. The learned appellant counsel has argued that Rafia pasha who is the defendant in O.S.No.2273 of 2O11 has been deceived by the plaintiff through a sham document i.e. the gift deed alieged to have been executed by their mother in favour of the plaintiff. She along with her sister Bee Bee Sulthana were the ETD,I cccA 191 192 2019 10 \1 - i, only children of their mother and thus, both of them have succeeded to the property of their mother Ameena Bee but the trial Court has not considered the said fact and has dismissed the suit for partition. The counsel has further argued that Rafia Pasha was staying in the portion allotted to her, in the prese nce of elders and that she is not staying in the premises as a tenant of Bee Bee Sulthana and therefore, Bee Bee Sulthana is not entitled to any relief of eviction against them and further is not entitled to receive any rents or mesne profits from her. On the other hand, Rafia Pasha is entitled for her share through partition as the legal heir of Ameena Bee. She further argued that taking advantage of her low economic status, Bee Bee Sulthana has been harassing her ever since the death of her husband and that she has also alleged theft on them and that they have approached Human Rights Commission. She further argued that Bee Bee Sulthana never stayed in India and that she used to pay occasional visits and that Rafia Pasha was taking care of her mother during her life time and has also performed her final rites. The cbunsel has further argued that Rafia Pasha is entitled to half share in the property of Ameena Bee and therefore, the trial Court's judgment and decree dismissing her suit for partition and decreeing the suit for eviction are erroneous ETD,J cccA 191 192 20r.9 77 and therefore, has prayed to set aside both the judgment and decree by allowing her appeals.

13. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has argued that Bee Bee Sulthana is the elder daughter of Ameena Bee and that Rafia Pasha is the younger daughter and that the marriage of Bee Bee Sulthana was performed with a citizen of UAE and that the Ameena Bee settled the marriage of Rafia Pasha with one of their relatives but after the settlement of marriage, she has eloped with an auto driver and was not in touch with them. Subsequentiy, their mother Ameena Bee has gifted the total suit schedule property to Bee Bee Sulthana and that she used to enquire about her mother's heaith and that their uncle used to take care of her mother in her absence. After the death of her mother, they got inducted Rafia Pasha to stay in the tin shed premises of the suit schedule property on compassionate grounds as she was facing hnancial problems. As the husband of Rafia Pasha was an auto driver and she was facing financial problems, out of courtesy Bee Bee Sulthana used to assist them hnancially. He further argued that the husband of Bee Bee Sulthana also helped the family of Rafia Pasha and purchased 5O Sq.yards of property at Amberpet and has also executed a declaration deed which is signed by Raha Pasha, EID,] cccA 191 192 2019 \ L2 having considered that Ral-ra pasha did not have any property and was living in poverty. He further argued that having signed the declaration as a witness, Rafia pasha does not have any right over the suit schedule property, she was staying in the premises out of permissive possession and that once Bee Bee Sulthana requested Raha pasha to vacate the suit schedule property, she is supposed to handover the vacant possession and vacate the suit schedule premises, but she has been evading the same causing loss to Bee Bee Sulthana He further argued that once when Bee Bee Sulthana visited India to attend the marriage of the third daughter of Rarra pasha, Bee Bee sulthana has left her jewellery in the custody of Raha pasha and the same was stolen, following which Bee Bee Sulthana has lodged a complaint with the police and later on the jewellery was recovered from the possession of the son_in_law of Rafia pasha. He further argued that Rafia pasha has developed an evil eye over the property of Bee Bee Sulthana and that she has already sold away the property which was given by Bee Bee Sulthana's husband at Prem Nagar, Amberpet and now she is hatching a plan to usurp a portion of the suit Schedule properfy and therefore, he prayed this Court to confirm the judgment and decree passed bv the trial Court in both the suits. 7 cccA 191 192 2019 13

14. Based on the above rival submissions, the following points arise for determination: 1) 2) 3) 4) Whether Bee Bee Sulthana is entitled for vacant possession of the suit schedule property? Whether Bee Bee Sulthana is entitled for the mesne profits claimed by her? Whether Raha Pasha is entitled to partition of the suit schedule property? If so, to what share? Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court is sustainable in law and under the facts? 5) To what relieP

15. Since the plaintiff in O.S.No.2273 of 2011 is the defendant in O.S.No.132 of 2Ol3 while the defendant in O.S.No.2273 of 2011 is the plaintiff in O.S.No. 132 of 2013, to avoid confusion, the parties herein are addressed by their names.

16. POINT NOs.l AND 2: a) Both the appeals i.e. CCCA Nos. 191 and 792 are Iiled by Rafia Pasha. Her contention is that herself and Bee Bee Sulthana were the daughters of Ameena Bee and thus, she is entitled to half share in the suit schedule property and that she is not supposed to be dvicted. .. .i \: -.'1 l ETD,I cccA 191 192 2019 - t4 b) The case of Bee Bee Sulthana is that her mother Ameena Bee is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property as she purchased the property from Mir Turab Ali Khan in 1961 and that during her life time her mo[her executed a gift deed in her favour. trx.A 1 is the gift deed and Ex.A2 is the registered sale deed dated 12.09.1961, it is in Urdu but an English translated copy is annexed to it. These two documents prove the case of the Bee Bee Sulthana that Ameena Bee was the absolute owner of the suit schedule premises by virtue of the sale deed under Ex.A2. The recitals of Ex.A1 show that Ameena bee has executed a gift deed on 25.03.1988 giving the suit schedule property to her elder daughter i.e. Bee Bee Sultana. Though Raha pasha alleges that the gift deed is a sham document, she has not taken any steps to prove her contention. It is pertinent to mention herein that Ex.A1 is a registered gift deed. Under Mohammedan Law, the gift deed can be either oral or written Hiba and the counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that since they follow the Personal Law, the Transfer of Property Act is not applicable to them. However, the gift deed was registered and was exhibited under Ex.A1. While the contention of counsel for appellant No.3 in this:egard is that, once they got it registered, it looses the colour of Personal Law and it has to be seen under the ETD,J cccA 191 192 2019 15 requirements of Transfer of Propert5r Act and the Indian Evidence Act. His contention is that once the gift deed is registered it has to be attested and once it is attested one of the witnesses / attestors has to be examined as a witness as per Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act and unless that is done, the document under Ex.Al cannot be held to be proved. c) Hiba or gift under Mohammedan Law is delined by Mulla in Principies of Mohammedan Law, 8th Edition, at page 150, as hereunder: "A Hiba or gifi is "a transkr of propertg, made immediatelg, and tuithout ang exchonge," by one person to another, and occepted bg or on behalf of the lattel' d) It is pertinent to refer to Section L29 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and it is extracted hereunder as: "129. Saving of donations mortis causa and Muhammadan Law.- Nothing in this Chapter reiates to gifts of moveable property made in contemplation of death, or shall be deemed to affect any rule of Muhammadan law." e) Since the statute jtself states that Chapter VII dealing with 'Gifts' is not applicable to Mohammedan Law, the contention of the appellant counsei that the gift deed in this case needs attestation and that the attestor has to be examined as a witness, is not tenable \-\'.--1'\ '' l r ETD,I ccu L91 L92 20L9 16 f) The Apex Court in Mqnsoor Saheb a. Salimal reiterated that the registration of gifts (Hiba) is not required under Mohammedan Law, if the valid requisites of the gift (declaration, acceptance, and possession) are fulfilled, then the validity of the gift cannot be affected even if it remains unregistered. d Thus under Mohammedan Law, the registration or attestation is not required to gift a property. It is enough if the donor intends to gift it and the donee accepts the same. h) In the present case, it is evident that the property has been gifted to Bee Bee Sulthana and that she has been enjoying the property. It is the clear case of Bee Bee Sulthana that the entire property was gifted to her. It is pertinent to mention in this regard that Rafia Pasha also admitted in her evidence that she started staying in suit schedule property after the death of her mother. It. is an admitted fact that her husband was an auto driver. It is further elicited through PW2 that she eloped with an auto driver after her marriage was fixed with one of their relatives and that following the said incident, the mother of the parties .t has gifted the property to Bee Bee Sulthana. 1 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1023 ETD,J cccA 191 192 2019 17 I PW2 lMeera Khan also supporte d the case of Bee Bee Sulthana. It is elicited from him that Ameena Bee has looked after their family and that Ameena Bee ald her husband, performed his marriage with Chand Sultana who is the daughter of Ameena Bee's sister and it is further elicited through him that husband of Rafia Pasha died prior to the death of Ameena Bee and has denied the suggestion that Raha Pasha performed the death ceremony and 40 days Chailum of Ameena Bee. He admitted that Bee Bee Sulthana was not present at the time of he death of Ameena Bee. In his cross examination nothing contra was elicited to discredit his evidence. j) PW2 has asserted that since the defendant was not in a good financial condition, it was the plaintiff who used to send money for her mother's treatment and himself and his children used to take care of Ameena Bee during her illness and also that after the death of Ameena Bee, they performed the final rites with the amount sent by the plaintiff. Thus, the evidence of PW2 falsihes the case of Rafia Pasha and strengthens the case of Bee Bee Sulhana. I \!- \-..{\r\ ETD,J ccca 191 192 2019 18 k) Rafia Pasha has admitted in her cross examination that her husband was an auto driver and that as per trx.B35 her brother-in-law purchased a property in her name and that she was asked to vacate the suit schedule premises. Ex.B35 is filed by her. She stated that though she hled it in the Court, she does not know how she got the document and she does not remember when the document was received but she has stated that the document is under her custody since 1997. This proves the contention of Bee Bee Sulthana that her husband purchased thc property and got executed trx.835. The said document is in the possession of Rafia Pasha ald she herself has filed in the suit but still feigned ignorance with regard to the mode of possessing the document and tried to pretend that she does not know about the contents. She further admitted that no one has made any attempts to evict her from the suit schedule property. l) Rafia Pasha got examined DW2/Nasreen Begum in support of her contentions and in the cross examination of DW2, it was elicited that her mother is a friend of Ameena Bee (mother of the parties herein) and that she is aware of the family affairs of both the parties. It is elicited from her that Rafia pasha and Bee Bee Sulthana used to reside in one house but in separate portlons. She stated that the house of Rafia pasha consists of two rooms 7 ETD,J cccA 191 192 2019 19 and a kitchen and that prior to this suit, one room was let out to a tenant and that Rafia Pasha used to collect rents from the said room and out of the said amounts she used to pay the electricily and water bil1s. She further admitted that Ralia pasha failed to pay the water bill and water connection was disconnected. This admission of DW2 proves the contention of Bee Bee Sulthana in this regard, that she has let out one room to a tenant and asked Rafia Pasha to collect rents from the said room and out of the said amounts, she used to pay the electricilSz and water charges. DW2 added that Rafia Pasha is residing in the said premises from her birth. This statement contradicts the averment made by Rafia Pasha, it is the case of Rafia Pasha that she has been residing in the premises from the death of her mother. This probabilises the case of Bee Bee Sulthana to be true. Thus, by virtue of the gift deed Bee Bee Sulthana is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and that Rafia Pasha is staying in the suit schedule property and that she is liable to vacate the suit schedule property and handover the vacant possession of the same. m) Therefore, by virtue of registered sale deed in favour of Ameena Bee and a gift deed executed by her in favour of Bee Bee Sulthana, it is held that Bee Bee Sulthana is entitled to the suit '"(--'l ETD,J cccA 191 192 2019 - 20 schedule property and thus, she is entitled to get Raha pasha evicted from the suit schedule property and she is also entitled to recover mesne profits. Point Nos. 1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

17. POINT NO.3: a) It is alleged by Rafia pasha/plaintiff in O.S.No. 132 of 2Ot3 that herself and her elder sister are the only children of Ameena Bee and that therefore, she is entitled for half share in the suit schedule property. Further, in her pleadings she has stated that during the life time of her mother, she was allotted a share in the property. She failed to produce any such evidence in this regard. b) She contradicted her own pleadings by saying that she requested Bee Bee Sulthana for partition of the suit schedule property but Bee Bee Sulthana has not come forward. If at all her contention that she was allotted a share in the suit schedule property during the life time of her mother is true, the question of partitioning the suit schedule property again does not arise. c) It is held under point Nos. 1 and 2 that Bee Bee Sulthana is entitled to the suit schedule property by virtue of gift deed/Ex.A1. The contention of respondent counsel is that the ETD,J cccA 191 192 2019 I 27 appellants failed to seek cancellation of gift deed and thus, they are not entitled to seek partition. d) Learned counsel for the appellant No. I has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in f,lussorin Ahmed Choudhury u, Habibur Rahman2. In the said case, the trial Court has held that the gift deed was validly executed and that the land covered by a subsequent sale deed had no relation with the said land and thus, decreed the suit. The First Appellate Court has upheld the orders while the High Court has concurred with the Courts below on the legality and validiff of the Gif Deed but has held that since the plaintilf failed to seek cancellation of sale deed, the plaintiff toould be dtsentitted from obtaining the decree declaring his right and interest ouer the suit schedule propertg. Ihe Apex Court has held that a plaintiff utho is not a partg to a decree or a document, is not obligated to sue for its cancellatlon and thus, hds confirtned the trial Court decree. Relying upon the said judgment, the appellant's counsel has argued that their suit would not fail just because they have not sought for cancellation of gif deed and that they have enough evidence to prove that the plaintiff is entitled for partition of suit schedule property. \\ ' 2025 scc online sc 892 ETD,] cccA 191 192 2019 22 e) It is already discussed in the preceding paragraphs that Raha Pasha failed to prove that the suit schedule property do not belong to Bee Bee Sulthana and that they are available for partition, therefore, the cited decision cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case. f) The said lactual matrix probabilises the case of Bee Bee Sulthana and the documents i.e. registered sale deed and the gift deed under Exs.A2 and A1 respectively prove that the property was gifted to Bee Bee Sulthana. Thus, the case of Bee Bee Sulthana in eviction suit appears to be true, while the case of Raha Prasha has no iegs to stand. She herself has hled document under trx.B35 which is the declaration given by the husband of Bee Bec Sulthana stating that he has purchased a property in the name of Raha pasha to an extent of 50 Sq.yards at Prem Nagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad and that from then on Rafia Pasha has no right over the suit schedule property. Thus, she was supposed to vacate the suit schedule premises and occupy the said property but it is an admitted fact that Rafia Pasha is still stayingrin the suit schedule property. The conduct of Raha Pasha in the partition suit is made out from her own contradjr:tory statements, on one hand she states that no declaration was executed by Bee Bee Sulthana,s husband. on the 7 ETD,] cccA 191 192 2019 12 other hand she herself hled Ex.B35 and again she states that she is not aware as to how she has received the document. Thus, she fumbled in her evidence and the evidence of DW2 is of no avail to her case and therefore, it is held that she is not entitled to any relief of partition. It is already held in issue Nos. I and 2 that Bee Bee Sulthana/plaintiff in O.S.No.2273 of 20i 1 is entitled to a decree of eviction and that Raha Prasha is supposed to vacate the suit schedule premises. Thus, by virtue of the sale deecl and the gift deed, the suit schedule property belongs to Bee Bee Sulthana/ plaintiff in O.S.No.2273 of 2011, therefore, once she is the owner of the property, there is no question of partition of the suit schedule property and Rafia Pasha/ plaintiff in O.S.No. 132 of'2O13 cannot claim any share in the said property' Therefore, the suit of Rafia Pasha/plaintiff in O.S.No. 132 of 2Ol3 fails and she is not entitled to partition of the suit schedule propcrty. Point No.3 is answered accordingly'

18. POINT NO.4: In view of the reasoned hndings arrived at point Nos l to 3, it is held that the common judgment and decree passed by the t trial Court dismissing the suit hled for partition and decreeing the suit fi1ed for eviction are found to be well reasoned and I ( I \*-'1 \ ETD,] cccA 191_192 2019 - 24 hence, they are held to be sustainable in law and under the facts and circumstances of the case

19. POINT NO.5: In the result, both the appeals are dismissed upholding the common judgment anrl decree dated 06.12.201g passed in O.S.No.2273 of 20ll and O.S.No. l3 2 of 2013 by the learned VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII sd/- 5tiilTEt?$Ei8 / 'l SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 4. 5. The One One One Two Svs/psl .i$ffif#*:[,+;irri*ru. HIGH COURT DATED:25l}GtzOZs .,'1 lrlF, sl.i/ i\ l: ._ 0 2 sEP 20[ 'i COMMON JUDGMENT o CCCA.No.191 AND 192 of ZOlg DISMISSING BOTH THE APPEALS &6 sl$