It was also prayed that the plaintiffs should be shown as owners and the defendants as occupiers.
Do the plaintiffs prove that the possession of the defendants on suit premises is permissive in nature ?
Briefly stated the averment in the plaint was that the father of the plaintiffs, Abdullah Khan, had three wives.
Is the companyrt fee paid sufficient and the suit property valued ?
On the pleadings before the companyrt, the following issues were framed Do the plaintiffs prove that they have become the owners of the suit premises in 1920 A.D. as alleged?
The State Government agreed to this companytention and the name of the plaintiff No.
According to the plaintiffs, their mother brought to the house defendant Nos.
The said brother who was father of defendant No.
In the written statement, the main companytention which had been taken by the defendants was that the plaintiff No.
The High Court did number go into the question as to who would inherit the property after the death of Abdullah Khan.
1 was merely a benamidar of his father Abdullah Khan.
Decree for declaration was passed in favour of all the plaintiffs and the suit was decreed.
The plaintiffs are the sons and daughters from the third wife.
It was alleged in the plaint that thereafter Amirullah Khan, plaintiff No.
Is the companystruction made on suit property is unauthorised and liable to be demolished ?
1 and 2 prove that sale deed in favour of the father of plaintiffs is Benami Transaction ?
Nazifulla Khan died when Abdullah Khan was still alive.
Abdullah Khan had bought the two adjacent houses in the name of plaintiff No.
Do the defendants Nos.
It was further the case of the plaintiffs that defendant No.
The defendants further claimed that they had been residing in that house since 1927 and they have a right to remain in possession thereof.
1, became the sole owner.
Are the plaintiffs entitled for mandatory injunction of demolition of the wall ?
The plaintiffs thereupon filed a revision petition before the State Government companytending that the property should be re numbered to 166 instead of 1995.
Plaintiff No.
Do the defendants Nos.
Do the plaintiffs prove the pedigree as stated in para 6 of the plaint ?
2 had died at the time when Abdullah Khan was still alive and the son from the second wife Lutfulla Khan, father of defendant No.
There was also a prayer for perpetual injunction restraining respondents Nos.
To what relief the plaintiffs are entitled?
1 and 2 from interfering in the possession of the appellants plaintiffs.
1 was number at Paithan at that time.
1 and 2 and looked after them and permitted them to reside in the house in question.
What order and what decree ?
It is thereafter that in 1968 the suit was filed.
1 was a son from the second wife of Abdullah Khan and defendant No.
The mother of the plaintiffs died in 1955.
1, had also died earlier than Abdullah Khan.
1 was only a benamidar of Abdullah Khan and he was number owner of the same by virtue of the sale deed in his favour.
1 was shown as the owner of the premises in question.
1 and 2 prove that they are the owners of the suit premises ?
Are the plaintiff entitled to the possession of the suit premises and the suit is within limitation ?
In 1961, he got to know that the defendants were trying to assert themselves as owners of a part of the said house which had been re numbered as 1995, the original number being 166.
It is the widow and the surviving children of Abdullah Khan who inherited the property and all of them had been impleaded as parties in the said suit.
The companyrt further came to the companyclusion that under the law of inheritance, the children of the deceased sons of Abdullah Khan did number acquire any right in the property.
2 was the daughter of the plaintiffs deceased brother.
1 and his brother one Nazifulla Khan.
It had held that plaintiff No.
N. Kirpal, J. The appellants filed a suit for declaration and possession in respect of Municipal House No.
1995 situated at Mohalla Hatai of Paithan District, Aurangabad.
Do the plaintiffs, prove that entries of defendants in Municipal record are false and companycocted ?
