The appeal against the dismissal of a partition suit was dismissed at the admission stage as the plaintiffs failed to show that the suit property belonged to Imam Sab, with revenue records standing in Khalander's name since 1971.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2023:KHC:39120 RFA No. 568 of 2014 C/W RFA.CROB No. 10 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023 BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 568 OF 2014 (PAR)
C/W
RFA CROSS OBJECTION NO. 10 OF 2015
IN RFA NO.568/2014
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
R/AT NO.30, 4TH CROSS, BEHIND LONDON HOSPITAL, GANESHA LAYOUT, M.S. PALYA, BENGALURU - 560 097.
NEAR JAYADEVA HOSPITAL, BENGALURU - 560 029.
SL.NO. 4(A), 4(B), 4(D) ARE R/AT NO.209, A.B. KADERANAHALLI CROSS, MOSQUE ROAD, MINA - HAZNAGAR, BENGALURU -560 078.
BENGALURU -560 078.
4(H). SRI. NADEEM AHMED, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O LATE MUKHTIAR AHMED, R/AT NO.162/1, NEHRU PURAM, SEPPINGS ROAD, BHARATHI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 001.
MRS. AJU BI SINCE DEAD BY LRS
SL. NO.5 TO 7 ARE CHILDREN OF LATE MRS.MAJU BI AND SL. NO. 3 TO 7 R/AT MOHAMMED SAB PALYA, (M.S.PALYA, CHIKKABETTAHALLI, YELHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE - 560 064.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. NARASIMHA MURTHY K., ADVOCATE FOR
NC: 2023:KHC:39120 RFA No. 568 of 2014 C/W RFA.CROB No. 10 of 2015
A3 AND A4(A TO D); SRI. C. NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR A4 (E TO H); VIDE ORDER DATED 11.10.2018 APPEA DISMISSED IN R/O A1 AND LRS OF A2 AS WITHDRAWN; VIDE ORDER DATED 12.10.2018 APPEAL IN R/O A5 AND A7 DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN; VIDE ORDER DATED 30.10.2018 APPEAL IN R/O A4 (E TO H) DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN; VIDE ORDER DATED 13.11.2018 APPEAL IN R/O A6 IS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN)
AND:
MRS. AMEENA BI, SINCE DEAD BY LRS.
SL.NO. 1 AND 2 ARE RESIDING AT M.S.PALYA, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE - 64.
SL.NO.3 AND 4 ARE
CHILDREN OF LATE HAFIZA BI, W/O LATE ABDUL RAZACK, R/AT MOHAMMED SAB PALYA, (M.S.PALYA), CHIKKABETTAHALLI, YELHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE-560 064.
MRS. ZAHOOR BI, BY LRS
SL.NO.5 TO 8 ARE CHILDREN OF LATE MRS ZAHOOR BI, W/O LATE SYED AHMED AND D/O LATE IMAM SAB.
SL.NO.5 TO 8 ARE R/AT MOHAMMED SAB PALYA, (M.S.PALYA) CHIKKABETTAHALLI, YELHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE - 560 064.
NC: 2023:KHC:39120 RFA No. 568 of 2014 C/W RFA.CROB No. 10 of 2015
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, W/O LATE IBRAHIM SAB, D/O LATE IMAM SAB.
MRS. KHUDDUS, SINCE DEAD BY LRS.
SL.NO.10 TO 12 ARE CHILDREN OF LATE MR.KHUDDUS, S/O LATE KHATOON BI (D/O LATE IMAM SAB).
SL.NO. 9 TO 12 R/AT MOHAMMED SAB PALYA, (M.S.PALYA), CHIKKABETTAHALLI, YELHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE - 560 064.
NC: 2023:KHC:39120 RFA No. 568 of 2014 C/W RFA.CROB No. 10 of 2015
SL. NO.14 TO 19 ARE CHILDREN OF LATE ABDUL.
NC: 2023:KHC:39120 RFA No. 568 of 2014 C/W RFA.CROB No. 10 of 2015
SL.NO.21 TO 25 ARE CHILDREN OF LATE KHALANDER.
NC: 2023:KHC:39120 RFA No. 568 of 2014 C/W RFA.CROB No. 10 of 2015
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, W/O LATE ABDUL AZEER.
SL.NO.13 TO 37 R/AT MOHAMMED SAB PALYA, (M.S.PALYA) CHIKKABATTAHALLI, YELHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE - 560 064.
MR.C.SATHYANARAYANA, SINCE DEAD BY LRS
SL.NO.38 AND 39 ARE R/AT NO.445/4, 33RD CROSS, 7TH MAIN,
NC: 2023:KHC:39120 RFA No. 568 of 2014 C/W RFA.CROB No. 10 of 2015
4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 082.
NC: 2023:KHC:39120 RFA No. 568 of 2014 C/W RFA.CROB No. 10 of 2015
SL.NO.42 TO 45 ARE R/AT NO.65, M.R.A. GARDEN, GEDDALAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 094.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. AFZAL KHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R9;
SRI. KESHAVA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R45; R1 TO R8 AND R10 TO R37 - NOTICE SERVED; R43, R44, R45, R46 - SERVED; V/O DATED 3.12.2014, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R41 IS HELD SUFFICIENT; V/O DATED 14.01.2015, R33, R35 AND R37 ARE DIED REPRESENTED BY R35; V/O DATED 06.10.2023, R38 TO R40 AND R42 CALLED OUT AND ABSENT; R8 IS DIED REPRESENTED BY R6 AND R7; R10 IS DIED REPRESENTED BY R11 AND R12; R13 IS DIED REPRESENTED BY R14 TO R19)
THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC.96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:4.01.2014 PASSED IN O.S.4885/1998 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII-ADDL, CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION. IN RFA.CROB NO.10/2015
BETWEEN:
SRI. MARUTHI R RAM,
NC: 2023:KHC:39120 RFA No. 568 of 2014 C/W RFA.CROB No. 10 of 2015
S/O LATE B.K RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS. R/O MRA GARDEN, GEDDALAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 094.
REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER, SRI M.R. MANJUNATHA, S/O SRI. M.L. RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O NO.80 B SECTOR, AMRUTHANAGAR, SAHAKARANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 092.
CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SRI. KESHAVA BHAT A, ADVOCATE) AND
NC: 2023:KHC:39120 RFA No. 568 of 2014 C/W RFA.CROB No. 10 of 2015
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
NO.1 IS THE WIFE AND NO.2 TO 7 ARE THE CHILDREN OF LATE ABDUL.
NO.8 IS THE WIFE AND NO.9 TO 13 ARE THE CHILDREN OF LATE KHALANDER.
NC: 2023:KHC:39120 RFA No. 568 of 2014 C/W RFA.CROB No. 10 of 2015
NO.14 AND 15 ARE TWO WIVES AND NO.16 TO 20 ARE CHILDREN OF LATE ABDUL SATTAR.
NO.21 AND 22 ARE TWO WIVES AND NO.23 TO 25 ARE CHILDREN OF LATE ABDUL AZEER.
NO.1 TO 25, ARE ALL
NC: 2023:KHC:39120 RFA No. 568 of 2014 C/W RFA.CROB No. 10 of 2015
RESIDING AT MOHAMAD SAB PALYA, (M.S. PALYA) CHIKKABETTAHALLI, YELAHANKA POST, BANGALORE - 560 064.
NOTE: ADDRESS OF SL.NO.1 TO 25 NOT MENTIONED IN JUDGMENT BUT SAME IS AVAILABLE IN DECREE OF TRIAL COURT.
NO.26 AND 27 ARE R/A NO. 445/4, 33RD CROSS,7TH MAIN, 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 082.
NC: 2023:KHC:39120 RFA No. 568 of 2014 C/W RFA.CROB No. 10 of 2015
BANGALORE - 560 065.
NO.30 TO 32 ARE R/O NO.65, MRA GARDEN, GEDDALAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 094.
NC: 2023:KHC:39120 RFA No. 568 of 2014 C/W RFA.CROB No. 10 of 2015
NO.33 TO 37 ARE RESIDING AT M.S. PALYA, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 064.
RESPONDENTS 38 TO 41 ARE CHILDREN OF LATE HAFIZA BI, W/O LATE ABDUL RAZAK AND D/O LATE IMAM SAB,
ALL ARE R/O MOHAMMED SAB PALYA, (M.S. PALYA) CHIKKABETTAHALLI, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE - 560 064.
NC: 2023:KHC:39120 RFA No. 568 of 2014 C/W RFA.CROB No. 10 of 2015
NO.42 TO 45 ARE THE CHILDREN OF LATE MRS. ZAHOOR BI, W/O LATE SYED AHMED AND D/O LATE IMAM SAB,
NO.42 TO 45 ARE RESIDING AT MOHAMMED SAB PALYA, (M.S. PALYA) CHIKKABETTAHALLI, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE - 560 064.
NO.46 TO 48 ARE THE CHILDREN OF LATE MRS. MAJU BI, D/O LATE IMAM SAB,
NC: 2023:KHC:39120 RFA No. 568 of 2014 C/W RFA.CROB No. 10 of 2015
NO.46 TO 48 ARE RESIDING AT MOHAMMED SAB PALYA, (MS PALYA) CHIKKABETTAHALLI, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE - 560 064.
NO.50 TO 52 ARE THE CHILDREN OF LATE KHUDDUS, S/O LATE KHATTON BI, (D/O LATE IMAM SAB) NO.50 TO 52 ARE RESIDING AT MOHAMMED SAB PALYA, (MS PALYA) CHIKKABETTAHALLI, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE - 560 064.
RESPONDENTS
NC: 2023:KHC:39120 RFA No. 568 of 2014 C/W RFA.CROB No. 10 of 2015
(BY SRI. AFZAL KHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R49(V.K NOT FILED); V/O DATED 29/1/2018, SRI. NARASIMHA MURTHY K TAKE NOTICE FOR R35, R37, R39, R46, R47, AND R48 (V.K NOT FILED))
THIS RFA.CROB IS FILED U/O XLI, RULE 22 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.01.2014 PASSED IN O.S NO.4885/1998 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION, SEPARATE POSSESSION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
THIS RFA ALONGWITH RFA.CROB, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri. Narasimha Murthy K, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Afzal Khan, learned counsel for the respondent.
NC: 2023:KHC:39120 RFA No. 568 of 2014 C/W RFA.CROB No. 10 of 2015
disposal of the appeal are as under:
share together in respect of landed property bearing No.12/6, situated at Mohammedsab Palya, Chikkabettahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring 4 acres 37 guntas bounded on the East by: Rahim Sab's property, West by: Mastan Sab's property, North by: Rasheed's property and South by: Usman Sab's property (hereinafter called as 'suit property') and also an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule property. It is also the contention of the plaintiffs that one Imam Sab was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. It was initially measuring 5
Acres 17 guntas, but the plaintiffs could gather the documents only to the extent of 4 Acres 37 guntas and therefore, the suit properties is restricted to 4 Acres 37
NC: 2023:KHC:39120 RFA No. 568 of 2014 C/W RFA.CROB No. 10 of 2015
guntas. It is the further contention of the plaintiffs that Imam Sab died in the year 1965 leaving behind (five sons and six daughters) who are plaintiffs and defendants.
enjoyment of suit schedule properties till his death. After the death of Imam Sab, his children were in possession of different portions of the suit properties and they enjoyed the properties as tenants-in-common.
son got the revenue entries mutated in his name and thereafter his son Sri. Muneer, who is the defendant No.9 in order to decieve other sharers and to deprive the rights to the daughters, took control of the entire properties in the guise of helping the co-owners and got revenue entries transferred in his name. Plaintiffs reposed faith in him thinking that they would get their respective shares in the property as Sri. Muneer was the only literate person in the family.
NC: 2023:KHC:39120 RFA No. 568 of 2014 C/W RFA.CROB No. 10 of 2015
property, he started cultivating the suit property without giving any share to the other co-sharers. Therefore, there was a demand. When all the demands made by the plaintiffs, went in vein, suit was filed.
NC: 2023:KHC:39120 RFA No. 568 of 2014 C/W RFA.CROB No. 10 of 2015
NC: 2023:KHC:39120 RFA No. 568 of 2014 C/W RFA.CROB No. 10 of 2015
additional issues.
1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are the daughters and legal heirs of late Imam Sab?
2) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are the co-owners of the suit schedule properties?
3) Whether the contesting defendant Nos.26 to 29 prove that 9the defendant was the full and absolute owner had sold the entire suit property to them as contended?
4) Whether the defendant Nos.26 to 29 prove that they have formed layout and sold different sites to various purchasers as contended?
5) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled for 6/16th share in the suit schedule properties and for separate possession of the same by metes and bounds?
6) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are in lawful and absolute possession of the suit schedule property and entered for Permanent injunction?
7) To what reliefs are the parties entitled to?
Addl. issue framed on 21/6:
Whether defendant Nos.26, 27 and 29 prove that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
Addl. Issue framed on 22.11.2008:
(1) Whether defendant Nos.26, 27 and 29 prove that the present suit is not maintainable in view of compromise decree passed in O.S.7970/1995?
(2) Whether defendant Nos.26, 27 and 29 prove that the present suit for partial partition is not maintainable in law?
NC: 2023:KHC:39120 RFA No. 568 of 2014 C/W RFA.CROB No. 10 of 2015
Whether defendant No.29 proves that later added plaintiffs are not the legal representatives of deceased plaintiffs and that they are strangers to the family?
plaintiff - Smt. Pyari Bi got examined herself as PW.1 and marked 16 documents in support of her case, comprising copy of the written statement in O.S No.7970/1995 proceedings of the said suit, RTC extract, Mutation register extract, copy of plaint in O.S No.15410/2006 and copy of the sale deed and genealogical tree.
NC: 2023:KHC:39120 RFA No. 568 of 2014 C/W RFA.CROB No. 10 of 2015
defendants, which are executed and marked as Ex.D1 to D21.
NC: 2023:KHC:39120 RFA No. 568 of 2014 C/W RFA.CROB No. 10 of 2015
impugned judgment to the effect that the plaintiffs have failed to produce any documents to show that the property belonged to Imam sab. On the contrary, the material evidence produced before the Court clearly establish that the property was held by the father of the 9th defendant - Sri. Muneer by name Sri. Khalander. Revenue entries stood in the name of Sri. Khalander right from 1971 and therefore, sale deed executed by Sri. Muneer in favour of the contesting defendants is just and proper.
NC: 2023:KHC:39120 RFA No. 568 of 2014 C/W RFA.CROB No. 10 of 2015
defendant. It is not the case of the plaintiffs either that the property was actually purchased by Imam Sab in the name of Sri. Khalander.
NC: 2023:KHC:39120 RFA No. 568 of 2014 C/W RFA.CROB No. 10 of 2015
infirmity or perversity. Entries in the revenue records with regard to suit property for a long period (since 1971) in the name of Khalander who is the father of 9th defendant, it would not be possible for this Court to form an opinion that the suit property in fact was owned by Imam sab and after his death, Khalander got mutated the revenue entries by playing fraud on the other sharers. No such evidence is placed on record on behalf of the plaintiff either to establish that a fraud has been played by Khalander and he has deceived the other sharers who are the other children of Imam sab.
the considered opinion that the grounds urged in the appeal are hardly sufficient to admit the appeal for further consideration. Accordingly, following;
ORDER
(iii) No order as to costs.
NC: 2023:KHC:39120 RFA No. 568 of 2014 C/W RFA.CROB No. 10 of 2015
In view of RFA.No.568/2014 being dismissed, RFA.CROB.10/2015 would not survive for consideration
and accordingly appeal is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
PHM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the dismissal of the suit by the trial court holding that the suit property was not the property of Imam Sab is valid
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Mrs Ameena Bi by her LRs
Mrs Ameena Bi since dead by LRs
V Srishananda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
