Dismissed

Sri. Nabisab S/O Mahibubasab Momin, v. Sri. Mahammadasab S/O Allabax Momin

Karnataka HC12 Dec 2022WP/100863/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order issuing a possession warrant during partition decree proceedings. The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the petition, holding that the final decree Court issuing the warrant could not be faulted given its jurisdiction to execute the decree.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with no reason to entertain it.

Sri. Nabisab S/O Mahibubasab Momin, Vs Sri. Mahammadasab S/O… — Partition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

WP No. 100863 of 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶4

DHARWAD BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 100863 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. NABISAB S/O MAHIBUBASAB MOMIN, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC: TRADER, R/O: MUDHOL, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT. PIN CODE-587313.

¶10

SRI. MUBARAK S/O ISSAK MOMIN, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: PAN SHOP, R/O: MUDHOL, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT. PIN CODE-587313.

¶11

SRI. ABUBKAR S/O ISSAK MOMIN, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: PAN SHOP, R/O: MUDHOL, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT. PIN CODE-587313.

¶12

SMT. SAIRABI W/O MATKUMSAB CHACHADI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: PLOT NEAR, SAYYED WALI DARGHA MANTUR ROAD, MUDHOL TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT. PIN CODE-587313.

¶13

SRI. MOULSAB S/O MAHIBUBASAB

¶14

¶15

WP No. 100863 of 2022

¶16

MOMIN, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: MUDHOL, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT. PIN CODE-587313.

¶17

SMT. JAINAMA S/O ABDUL ATTAR, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: BELAGALI, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT. PIN CODE-587313.

¶18

SMT. MAIMUN S/O HAIDRASAHEB DAFEDAR, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: MUDHOL ROAD, MOMIN GALLI, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT. PIN CODE-587313.

¶19

SMT. JAMILA W/O RAHIMANASAB KHANMOHAMMAD, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: MUDHOL, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT. PIN CODE-587313.

¶20

SMT. HAMIDA W/O BABUSAB ALAGUR, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: RANNAJAGI, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT. PIN CODE-587313.

¶21

SMT. HALIMA W/O BABUSAB HALINGALI, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: LAXMI NAGAR, BANAHATTI, TQ: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT. PIN CODE-587313.

¶22

SMT. GULASHAN W/O MAINODDIN

¶23

¶24

WP No. 100863 of 2022

¶25

HALINGALI, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCC: TRADERS, R/O: MUDHOL, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT. PIN CODE-587313.

¶26

..PETITIONERS

¶27

(BY SRI. G I GACHCHINAMATH, ADV.)

¶28

AND:

¶29

SRI. MAHAMMADASAB S/O ALLABAX MOMIN, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, R/O. MUDHOL, TQ.MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT-587313.

¶30

SMT.NAZUKBI W/O ISSAK MOMIN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MUDHOL, TQ.MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT-587313.

¶31

SMT.MABUBI W/O MAIBUBASAB MOMIN, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MUDHOL, TQ.MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT-587313.

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI.MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADV. FOR R1)

¶34

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.12.2021 MADE IN FD.P NO.10/2006 PASSED BY PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDE AND JMFC, MUDHOL ISSUING THE POSSESSION WARRANT IN FDP WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-C BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR ORDER OF DIRECTIONS AND FURTHER SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF ISSUANCE OF POSSESSION WARRANT.

¶35

¶36

WP No. 100863 of 2022

¶37

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

This petition is filed challenging the order of the

¶40

final decree Court in issuing a possession warrant.

¶41

It is not in dispute that the suit for partition which had been instituted in 1993 has been decreed and was also confirmed in appeal. It is also not in dispute that pursuant to the preliminary decree, a final decree is also drawn up and in pursuance to the said final decree, possession warrant has been ordered by the final decree Court.

¶42

The only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that possession warrant could not have been issued in the final decree proceedings and separate proceedings for execution of the final decree has to be initiated.

¶43

¶44

WP No. 100863 of 2022

¶45

It is not in dispute that the Court which passed

¶46

the final decree would be the Court which will have to execute the decree.

¶47

In that view of the matter, issuance of

¶48

possession warrant by the final decree Court cannot be really found fault with.

¶49

I find no reason to entertain this writ petition

¶50

and the same is disposed of.

¶51

sd JUDGE

¶52

KGK

¶53

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58

Sri. Nabisab S/O Mahibubasab Momin, v. Sri. Mahammadasab S/O Allabax Momin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Nabisab S/O Mahibubasab Momin, v. Sri. Mahammadasab S/O Allabax Momin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Tippu Sultan S/O Late Chandrappa Uppargeri Alias Chandasab Vs K E B Basamma W/O Lat Chandrappa Upparageri Alias Chandasab

Sri Abdulnabi S/O Bashasaba Attara Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Naveen Kumar B S/O Late Brahmadevaiah N. Vs Smt. Padmashree D Kivade D/O Dhanyakumar Kivade

Shri.Shivabasappa S/O Veerbhadrappa Karoshi Vs Shri.Rajivan K.B.

The Commissioner Vs Smt.Mahadevi W/O Krishnappa Pattar

Sri Laxmivinayak Trading Company Vs Deputy Commissioner