Hope for Paigahs legal heirs
A preliminary decree declared that shares of the parties were liable to partition
A recent order of the Hyderabad High Court with regard to Paigah properties has given hope of getting justice to the legal heirs of the Paigah family who have been fighting for their legitimate right for the past six decades.
The legal heirs felt that though the Original Suit of Paigah properties was pending since 1958, it was the first time that the special bench, which is currently hearing the suit and interlocutory applications therein, went into the origin of the controversy surrounding the Paigah properties and found that the final decree was yet to be passed in the suit.
A two-member special bench comprising Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice N. Balayogi are currently dealing with the cases of the suit related to the Paigah properties.
The bench on August 16 dismissed three petitions by Ms Trinity Infraventures Ltd formerly known as Ms Goldstone Exports Ltd, belonging to Goldstone Prasad with regard to Paigah lands in Hasmathpet village of Balanagar mandal of Ranga Reddy district.
The bench said, “This Bench has an advantage. Since all the miscellaneous petitions, writ petitions, appeals and appeals arising out of several orders passed in several interlocutory applications in CS No. 14 of 1958, have now been posted before this Bench as Specially Ordered cases, in view of their long pendency, we have had the advantage of looking into the history of this litigation.”
The bench noted, “We have seen the copy of the plaint in CS No. 14 of 1958, the preliminary decree passed therein and the schedule of properties covered by the preliminary decree. It may be necessary for us to record what is reflected therein, so that the issues raised herein can be thrashed out easily.”
The bench also noted that “the whole issue in these cases revolves around the finality to a final decree, but the very existence of the final decree is also in dispute.”
The judgment dated 26.02.2010 in A. No. 711 of 2009 is not a judgement finally allocating specific properties to specific parties to the final decree application.
The bench held that the question of specific immovable properties or specifically identified portions of immovable properties getting allotted to any person merely holding a preliminary decree with respect to an undivided share did not arise.
The bench pointed out that a preliminary decree in a suit for partition merely declared the shares that the parties were entitled to in any of the properties included in the plaint schedule and liable to partition.