Dismissed

Mustaffa Khadri and Anr. v. Noorhajan and Ors.

Karnataka HC4 Sept 2024WP/202331/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition challenging a trial court order that allowed amendment to include two additional properties in a partition suit post-remand. The court held the amendment merited no infirmity as it prevents multiplicity of proceedings and causes no injustice.

What did the court decide?

The amended order allowing inclusion of two other properties in the partition suit was upheld; the writ petition challenging the trial court's order was dismissed.

Mustaffa Khadri and Anr. Vs Noorhajan and Ors. — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:6657 WP No. 202331 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶3

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 202331 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MUSTAFFA KHADRI AND S/O GOUSPEER PEERJADE, AGE: 77 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, RESIDENCE OF NAGADAE GALLI,

¶10

GACHIN MAHAL, BIJAPUR-586104

¶11

GOOREPPEER S/O GOUSPEER PEERJADE, AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, RESIDENCE OF KANKAL, TALUKA B. BAGEWADI-586203

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

Digitally signed by BASALINGAPPA SHIVARAJ DHUTTARGAON Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

(BY SRI. AMRESH S ROJA, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

NOORHAJAN W/O SALEEM JAHAGIRDAR, AGE. 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION HOUSEHOLD WORK, RESIDENCE OF GM ROAD, ZANDA KATTA, BIJAPUR-586104

¶17

BIPASHA W/O PASHA @ MASTAN HUSSAINE, AGE. 69 YEARS, OCCUPATION HOUSEHOLD WORK, RESIDENCE OF GOOGI, TALUKA SHAHAPUR, DISTRICT GULBARGA,

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:6657 WP No. 202331 of 2024

¶19

NOW YADGIRI-585309

¶20

SHAHAZADBI W/O YUSUFPASHA JAHAGIRDAR, AGE: 67 YEARS, OCCUPATION HOUSEHOLD WORK, RESIDENCE OF SHIGARALLI, TALUKA JEWARGI, DISTRICT GULBARGA-58

¶21

SAHIBJAADEE W/O NOORUDDIN INAMDAR, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCCUPATION HOUSEHOLD WORK, RESIDENCE OF HARIYAL GALLI, BIJAPUR.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS ARE DISPENSED WITH)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSSUE (A) ISSUE A WRIT IN A NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER UNDER ANNEXURE-G DATED 12.06.2024 PASSED IN O.S NO. 162/2012 BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BASAVANA BAGEWADI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, ETC.,

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)

¶29

Notice to the respondents are dispensed with, in view

¶30

of the proposed order to be passed in the present petition.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC-K:6657 WP No. 202331 of 2024

¶33

2. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶34

(a) Issue a writ in a nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction, quashing the impugned order under Annexure-G dated 12.06.2024 passed in O.S.No.162/2012 by the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC Cout, Basavana Bagewadi, in the interest of justice.

¶35

(b) Such other writ or order as direction as deemed fit as circumstances of the case including an order for costs.

¶36

The petitioners are defendants in O.S.No.162/2012 filed for partition and separate possession. The suit having been decreed, an appeal was filed in R.A.No.25/2019, which came to be partially allowed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Basavana Bagewadi, vide Judgment dated 27.11.2020 and matter was remanded to the trial court.

¶37

Subsequent to the remand, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to include two other properties and a relief in respect of those properties for partition. The

¶38

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:6657 WP No. 202331 of 2024

¶39

said application came to be opposed by the petitioner herein, who is defendant Nos.1 and 2 therein. The trial Court, by way of the impugned order dated 12.06.2024, allowed the said application. It is aggrieved by the same; the petitioners are before this Court.

¶40

The submission of Sri.Amaresh S. Roja, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the remand being a limited order, no fresh reliefs can be sought for. The suit ought to be proceeded with in the manner as filed and as such, new properties could not be brought on record nor new reliefs can be sought for and on that ground he submits that the order of the trial Court suffers from legal infirmity requiring this court's interference.

¶41

Heard Sri. Amresh S. Roja, leearned counsel for the petitioner and perused papers and the amendment application which has been filed.

¶42

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:6657 WP No. 202331 of 2024

¶43

What is sought for is to bring certain additional

¶44

properties on record. Though the said application has been filed after the commencement of trial, in fact, after disposal of the suit and after remand by an appellate Court, I am of the considered opinion that the inclusion of two other properties which are claimed to be joint family properties would not cause any harm or injustice to the petitioners. It is always available to the petitioners to establish that those properties are not joint family properties and or that those properties are not amenable for partition. Any suit for partition would have to encompass all the properties of the family so as to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. In that view of the matter, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court. The above petition stands dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

¶45

Sd/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶46

SVH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36

Mustaffa Khadri and Anr. v. Noorhajan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mustaffa Khadri and Anr. v. Noorhajan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhikule Archana Ramesh and Ors. Vs Principal and Ors.

Ajagar Pasha Vs the Registrar

Venkatacharya Puranik S/O Sri. Gururaghavendracharya Puranik Vs the Commissioner and Ors.

Nazeer Ahmad Vs Shrishail and Ors.

Bheemareddy Vs the Deputy Commissioner and Ors.

Dr Munazzah Fatima Vs Dr. Abdullah