Partition suit by one heir against his siblings and a purchaser under Muslim Personal Law; courts below decreed shares and modified them on appeal. The High Court found no error or substantial question of law in the first appellate court's revised share pattern and dismissed the regular second appeal.
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: 2024:KHC:13153 RSA No. 1521 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1521 OF 2023 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
ABDUL MUTHALIK, S/O ABDUL JALEEL SAB, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O JAYAPURA VILLAGE AND HOBLI, TALUK AND DISTRICT MYSURU, PINCODE - 570 005.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SOMASHEKAR KASHIMATH.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka
S/O LATE PASHA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
NC: 2024:KHC:13153 RSA No. 1521 of 2023
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
5. MUSEENA
D/O LATE PASHA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
6. THASEENA
S/O LATE PASHA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
7. JABI
S/O LATE PASHA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
8. HALEEL
S/O LATE PASHA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
ALL THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 8 ARE ALL R/O HARADANAHALLI VILLAGE, HULLAHALLI HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK DISTRICT MYSURU - 571 301.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS IS RSA FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.02.2023 PASSED IN RA NO.48/2016 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NANJANGUD, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.01.2016 PASSED IN OS NO.556/2012 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NANJANGUD.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is by the defendant No.8 aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 14.01.2016 passed in OS No.559/2012 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge & M.F.C, Nanjangud, which is confirmed and modified by the judgment and order dated 07.02.2023 passed in RA No.48/2016 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nanjangud.
defendant Nos.1 to 7 are the children of one late Pasha and that they are governed under the provisions of Muslim Personal Law. That upon the demise of the said Pasha, they became entitled for definite share in the suit schedule property. That defendant No.4 fabricating the documents in respect of item No.1 of suit schedule property sold the same in favour of the defendant No.8 without consent and knowledge of the plaintiff and other defendants. That the plaintiff caused issue of a legal notice calling upon the defendant No.8 to re-convey the suit schedule property to their family. Since there was no response to the notice, plaintiff was constrained to file the above suit.
filed written statement. Defendant No.8 alone filed his written statement and contested the suit.
fallen to the share of the defendant No.4 and as she was shown to be in the possession of the property, defendant No.8 purchased the same in terms of deed of sale dated 12.09.2007. As such, she is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit.
"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 7 and they are tenants in common?
2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the sale deed executed by the defendant No.1 to 7 in favour of defendant No.8 with respect to item No.1 of the suit property on dated 12/9/2007 is not binding on him?
3. Whether the defendant No.8 proves that he is the bonafide purchaser of the suit item No. 1 of the property?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for 1/7th share in the suit schedule property by metes and bounds?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits?
NC: 2024:KHC:13153 RSA No. 1521 of 2023
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought for?
7. What Order or Decree?"
and recorded the evidence and having found that suit schedule property admittedly belong to the father of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 7, decreed the suit awarding 1/7th share to the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, defendant No.8 preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court.
"1. Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court needs interference?
and apart from confirming the judgment and decree
passed by the Trial Court modified the share pattern in which plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 3, 5 to 7 are held to be entitled for 2/15th share each and defendant No.4 is held to be entitled for 1/15th share in the suit schedule
NC: 2024:KHC:13153 RSA No. 1521 of 2023
property. Aggrieved by the same, defendant No.8 is before this Court.
oral partition amongst family members. However, as taken note of by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court the
said oral partition has not been proved.
Since no substantial question of law would arise in the matter, appeal is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
RU
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 26
2 issues framed by the court
Was the alleged oral partition among the children of late Pasha proved so as to defeat the plaintiff's share?
Did the defendant No.8 establish himself as a bonafide purchaser of item No.1 of the suit schedule property?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Abdul Muthalik s/o Abdul Jaleel Sab
Sardar Ahmed
Noor Ahmed
Nazeer Ahamed
Nabi
Museena
M.G.S. Kamal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
