Telangana High Court
Ahmed Khaleeduddin vs Afzal Mirza Chishty on 18 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.930 of 2019
Date: 18.03.2026
Between:
Ahmed Khaleeduddin and 2 others
... Petitioners
AND
Afzal Mirza Chishty and 6 others
... Respondents
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by Order and Decree dated 19.02.2019 in I.A.No.307 of 2015 in O.S.No.397 of 2014 passed by the learned XXI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
2. Heard Sri J. Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Sri Azhar Ali Khan, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the entire material on record.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners herein filed an application, that is IA No.307 of 2015, in OS No.397 of 2014, 2 of 7 NNR, J CRP_930_2019 filed under Order 1 Rule 10 r/w. Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code (CPC), seeking a prayer to implead the petitioners as proposed defendants i.e., defendant Nos.2 to 8, and the brief averments of the plaint are that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, who are the plaintiffs therein, filed a suit vide OS No.397 of 2014 against the respondent Nos.3 to 7 herein, seeking a relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties of the plaintiffs therein.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner in I.A.No.307 of 2015 contended that he along with their brothers and sisters are the joint and absolute owners of the property bearing Municipal Nos. 2-1-519, 2-1-518, 2-1-517, 2-1- 518/1, 2-1-518/2, and 2-1-518/3, admeasuring 1145 Square yards or equivalent to 957 Square meters situated at Nallakunta, Hyderabad.
5. It is further submitted that the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs have creating forged and fabricated documents and filed the present false and frivolous suit. It is also contended that the respondent Nos.3 to 7/defendants have filed O.S.No.570 of 2015 seeking cancellation of the said documents, which is 3 of 7 NNR, J CRP_930_2019 pending before the learned XXI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Additionally, it is stated that the petitioner/proposed defendant No.6 is residing in Australia and he came down to India and came to know about all the illegal acts of the respondent/plaintiff and after knowing the pendency of the present suit, he filed the present application to get himself impleaded along with other petitioners and contended that the petitioners are in actual, peaceful, physical possession of the suit schedule property and that he is the necessary party to the present suit.
6. Respondent No.1 filed a counter affidavit denying the averments made in I.A.No.307 of 2015 and contended that petitioner/proposed defendant No.6 is not the necessary party or proper party to the suit schedule property.
7. The detailed contentions raised in the counter regarding the relationship among the parties, the manner in which they derived ownership of the property and issues relating to title cannot be gone into in the present proceedings, particularly in a revision. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioners are necessary or proper parties to the suit.
4 of 7 NNR, J CRP_930_2019
8. Admittedly, the suit was filed seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants. On perusal of the cause of action which discloses that the dispute arose in the context of the execution of a will, pursuant to which the defendants allegedly attempted to interfere with the plaintiff's possession. It is specifically averred that on 26.01.2014, 09.02.2014, and 14.02.2014, the defendants along with their agents interfered with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and made attempts to dispossess the plaintiff.
9. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff argued and contended that the documents which are executed by this respondent by name Afzal Mirza Chishty and his brother Mian Aziz @ Aziz Mirza Mahboobi are to the extent of their area only which was allotted to them in partition, i.e., Miya Aziz @ Aziz Mirza Mahboobi (1st son) 296.33 Sq. yards Afzal Mirza Chishty (3rd son) 300 Sq. yards For religious Purpose ( Later formed a Khaqha-E-Amena Mahboob Society) 398 Sq. yards.
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 as on today also has not even grabbed any single inch of land or claimed any excess area of land beyond their allotted area. The entire documents which was executed by respondent Nos.1, 2 and society (Later formed a Khaqha-E-Amena 5 of 7 NNR, J CRP_930_2019 Mahboob Society) area of 398 Sq. yards, are in respect of their area only allotted to them.
10. Admittedly, the present suit has been filed solely for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants. It is a settled principle of law that the plaintiff being dominus litis, who is the master of the suit and has the right to choose the parties against whom relief is sought for. Unless specific allegations are made against a person regarding interference or dispossession, such person cannot be compelled to be impleaded in a suit for injunction purely on the basis of existence of a title over the property.
11. It is further well established that in a suit for bare injunction, the question of title cannot be conclusively adjudicated. The Court may incidentally examine title only for the limited purpose of determining possession, but no finding on title can be rendered in such proceedings.
12. In the present case, the learned Senior Counsel has rightly contended that the learned trial Court, while dealing with the said application, unnecessarily gone into the issue of title and recorded a finding that the petitioner has no title over the subject property.
6 of 7 NNR, J CRP_930_2019 Such a finding is beyond the scope of the proceedings and is therefore unwarranted.
13. It is further contended that the learned trial Court improperly examined the aspect of possession. As per the record, the petitioner was admittedly residing in Australia and not in India at the time of filing of the suit, and there is no direct allegation of interference or dispossession against him and there is no dispute regarding the same.
14. Further, the contention of the petitioner/proposed defendant No.6 that he has filed a suit for partition and separate possession vide O.S.No.281 of 2015 which was pending before the learned XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. Therefore, in the absence of proper evidence by the petitioner to prove his authority over the suit schedule property, he cannot be a necessary or proper party to the present suit.
15. Considering the material placed on record and contentions raised by both the parties, the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion and dismissed the application as the petitioner miserably failed to prove that they are necessary or proper parties to the suit and hence, they cannot be impleaded to the suit as 7 of 7 NNR, J CRP_930_2019 prayed. The scope of the suit is being confined only to the grant of injunction, the impleadment of the petitioners is not warranted.
16. This Court is also of the considered view that there are no grounds to interfere with the said findings and no interference is required in respect of the order passed by the learned trial Court and consequently, the present revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
17. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the Order and Decree dated 19.02.2019 in I.A.No.307 of 2015 in O.S.No.397 of 2014 passed by the learned XXI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stands closed.
________________________________________________ JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA Date: 18.03.2026.
vjb