The city civil court has disposed off the petition filed by three sons seeking a restraining order against their father over a property which they claimed should have been handed over to them. However, the court ended the nine-year-old fight and found that the sons tried to play fraud by misleading the part of the property with another, to grab it.
Nazma Khatoon Kazi and her three sons, Habib, Alam and Hasib had moved a petition against Tauhid Kazi seeking to restrain him from entering into the shop premises located in Khatun Villa in Marol, Sakinaka in 2014.
Suit was disposed off in 2014
Tauhid had filed a civil suit against them in 2013 in the property dispute. However, a consent term was filed wherein it was agreed that Tauhid would hand over some part of the property of the house to the sons and their mother. The said suit was disposed off in April 2014. However, a month later, the sons moved a petition seeking a restraining order against the father from entering a part of the premises which they claimed had to be handed over to them.
The father opposed the plea claiming this was a ploy to grab the property. He submitted a copy of the consent terms and a map of the house which were submitted before the court a month before the sons filed their petition. In the court, sons too had filed a map of the house marking the portion.
Court's observations
The court after hearing both the side, noted, as per the consent terms, the area of the room given to the plaintiffs is described as 10' x 13' on north side and 10' x 15' on the south side, in front of the room, there is one otla ad measuring 5' x 15'. Undisputedly, the plaintiffs are in possession of this much area.
The court further noted, “It seems that the plaintiffs in the plaint as well as in the sketch map have given a description of the room which is in the middle portion of two shops i.e, one on the east side and another on the east side. Its area has been shown as 10' x 12'. The room as shown in sketch map produced on record by the plaintiffs is not matching with the description of the room as mentioned in consent terms.”
“It is to note that as per the map annexed with the consent terms, the room which was given to the plaintiffs is on east side of shop No 4 i.e, touching to the Reliance Energy Power Station and there is one otla of 10' x 5' on south side of the said room. In the room, no shop of the defendant has been shown on east side. Thus, it is clear that the plaintiffs have mentioned wrong boundaries, wrong area and wrong description of the property,” the court said adding that the sons had not approached to the court with clean hands and under the garb of perpetual injunction order, they wanted to grab the other part of the property from their father.
