Sri D.S.Raghavendra Vs Syed Abdul Jaleel — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sri D.S.Raghavendra Vs Syed Abdul Jaleel — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal disposed of: the First Appellate Court's finding that the Will (Ex.D.35) is shrouded with suspicion is set aside; the remand to the Trial Court for fresh disposal (including fresh consideration of the proof of Exs.D.35 and D.36) is maintained, with liberty to the Trial Court to frame or re-cast issues and consider the matter afresh giving opportunity to the respective parties.

Issue for consideration

Whether the First Appellate Court's finding on the Will (Ex.D.35) relied upon by the Trial Court — that unless the scribe and attesting witnesses are examined the Trial Court's conclusion is erroneous, the Will being shrouded in mystery requiring strict proof — could stand while remanding the matter. +2 more

Court's answer

The First Appellate Court ought not to have made the observation that the Will (Ex.D.35) is shrouded with suspicion (characterised by the appellant's counsel as a conclusive finding that the Will is fraudulent) when the witnesses had not been examined; accordingly, that finding is set aside, the matter remaining remanded to the Trial Court to consider the issue afresh with regard to proving of documents Exs.D.35 and 36.

Ratio / Principle

Except for the observation set aside above, no error is found in the First Appellate Court remanding the matter for fresh consideration.

Key takeaways

On remand, if any issue requires to be framed, the Trial Court can frame the issue or re-cast the issues and consider the matter afresh, giving an opportunity to the respective parties.ratio¶83

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Miscellaneous Second Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(u) CPC by D.S. Raghavendra against the remand order dated 05.04.2019 in RA.No.15052/2018 (V Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Devanahalli), whereby the First Appellate Court had allowed the appeal, set aside the decree dated 01.10.2018 in O.S.No.11/2006 (Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Devanahalli) dismissing the suit for partition and declaration, and remanded the matter for fresh trial — observing that the Will deed (Ex.D.35) relied upon by the Trial Court was shrouded in mystery requiring strict proof through the scribe and attesting witnesses, and that the suit (filed 24.11.1995) was within 12 years of the death of Syed Mohiuddin (28.01.1985), the First Appellate Court relying on Smt. Daya Devi v. Smt. Aanguri Devi, AIR 2002 Delhi 295. Held (H.P. Sandesh, J.): the First Appellate Court ought not to have made the observation that the Will is shrouded with suspicion when the witnesses had not been examined, and that finding is set aside; subject thereto, no error was found in the remand for fresh consideration of the proof of Exs.D.35 and D.36. The appeal stands disposed of, with liberty to the Trial Court to frame or re-cast issues and consider the matter afresh giving opportunity to the respective parties. The appellant's contention that the onus lay on the contesting respondents to prove applicability of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 (Shuni Sect) was not adjudicated by this court.

NC: 2025:KHC:18687 MSA No. 115 of 2023

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO.115 OF 2023 (RO)

BETWEEN:

SRI. D.S.RAGHAVENDRA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O LATE D.SHAMA RAO, RESIDING AT NO.2014/C, 6^TH MAIN CROSS, III BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 011.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. C.N.MAHADESHWARAN, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SYED ABDUL JALEEL,

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

1(a) SMT.HASEENA BI, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, W/O LATE SYED ABDUL JALEEL.

1(b) SRI. S.J.FAROOQ, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O LATE SYED ABDUL JALEEL.

1(c) SRI. S.J.FAIROZ, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O LATE SYED ABDUL JALEEL.

1(d) SMT. S.J.ASMA ANJUM, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

D/O LATE SYED ABDUL JALEEL.

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:18687 MSA No. 115 of 2023

HC-KAR

1(e) SMT. S.J.SHAMEENA BI, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, D/O LATE SYED ABDUL JALEEL.

1(f) SMT. S.J.ZOHRA JABEENA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, D/O LATE SYED ABDUL JALEEL.

RESIDING AT 16/1, 1^ST FLOOR, 3^RD CROSS, DR.T.C.M.ROYAN ROAD.

SMT. SHARFUNNISSA, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS.

2(a) SRI. MANSOOR ALI KHAN, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O LATE SHARFUNNISSA.

2(b) SRI. MAZHAR ALI KHAN, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O LATE SHARFUNNISSA.

2(c) SRI. MAQSOOD ALI KHAN, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, D/O LATE SHARFUNNISSA.

2(d) SRI. IMRAN ALI KHAN, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, D/O LATE SHARFUNNISSA.

2(e) SMT.MINNA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, D/O LATE SHARFUNNISSA.

2(f) SMT. FARIDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, D/O LATE SHARFUNNISSA.

2(g) SRI. ANWAR ALI KHAN, MAJOR IN AGE, S/O LATE SHARFUNNISSA.

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:18687 MSA No. 115 of 2023

HC-KAR

SMT. SHAKEELA, MAJOR IN AGE.

SRI. SYED HUSSAIN, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

4(a) SMT. ISHRATH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, W/O LATE SYED HUSSAIN.

4(b) SRI. MUBARAK, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, S/O LATE SYED HUSSAIN.

SRI. ILIYAS PASHA, MAJOR IN AGE.

SRI. MUNEER, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

6(a) SMT. ABIDA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, W/O LATE MUNEER.

6(b) SMT. ARSHIYA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, D/O MUNEER.

6(c) SRI. SHAZIA, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, S/O LATE MUNEER.

6(d) SRI. SAMEER, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, S/O LATE MUNEER.

6(e) SRI. ZAMEER, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, S/O LATE MUNEER.

6(f) SRI. AFRIDI, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, D/O LATE MUNEER.

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:18687 MSA No. 115 of 2023

HC-KAR

RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 6 ARE ALL RESIDING NEAR MASJID, DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

SRI. FAYAIZ, MAJOR IN AGE.

SRI. SYED MAHMOOD, S/O H.SYED MOHIUDDIN, MAJOR IN AGE.

SMT. MEHRUNNISSA D/O H.SYED MOHIUDDIN, MAJOR IN AGE.

RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O LAKSHMAIAH.

RESIDING AT SAROVARA STREET, DEVANAHALLI TOWN, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. NAVEED AHMED, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1(a – f); SRI. MANJUNATH G. KANDEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4 (a & b) AND R6 (a, e, f); SRI. FAYAZ KHAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5; SRI. S.N.TABASSUM, ADVOCATE FOR R7; SRI. SULTAN, ADVOCATE FOR R8 AND R9; R2(a) TO (g), R3, R6(b), R6(c), R6(d) AND R10 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS MSA FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(u) OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.04.2019 PASSED IN RA.No.15052/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DEVANAHALLI, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.10.2018 PASSED IN O.S.No.11/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND DECLARATION AND REMAND THE MATTER

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:18687 MSA No. 115 of 2023

HC-KAR

BACK TO THE TRIAL COURT FOR FRESH DISPOSAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

ORAL JUDGMENT

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned

counsel for the appellant.

This miscellaneous second appeal is filed challenging the order of remand passed by the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court in paragraph No.31 of its judgment having taken note of the issue of Will, which has been relied upon by the Trial Court, comes to the conclusion

that unless the scribe and the attesting witnesses are examined, the question of coming to such a conclusion by the Trial Court is erroneous. The First Appellate Court also made an observation that the Trial Court has forgotten the golden rule of appreciation of evidence and the document of Ex.D.35 is shrouded in mystery, as such it requires strict proof. The document of Ex.D.35 is the Will deed. The First Appellate Court also relies upon the document of Ex.D.36 and comes to the conclusion that unless these two documents are proved by

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:18687 MSA No. 115 of 2023

HC-KAR

examining the attesting witnesses, the matter requires remand for fresh trial. The First Appellate Court in paragraph No.33 of the judgment made the discussion with regard to the filing of the suit within the prescribed limitation period of 12 years from the date of cause of action on the ground that Syed Mohiuddin died on 28.01.1985. The present suit came to be filed on 24.11.1995, it means within 12 years from the date of death of late Mohiuddin, as succession opens only after his death. Having considered the same, the First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that the Trial Court erred in holding that the suit is time barred by relying upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of SMT.

DAYA DEVI v. SMT. AANGURI DEVI AND OTHERS

reported in AIR 2002 Delhi 295 . Having taken note of the issue of limitation, both in respect of question of fact and question of law, the First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that the matter requires fresh disposal in accordance with law and remanded the same.

The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the appellant is a bonafide purchaser and onus of proving that the benefit of Muslim Personal Law is

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:18687 MSA No. 115 of 2023

HC-KAR

applicable to the contesting respondents, was on them, in as much as, it was for them to prove that they belong to the Shuni Sect of Muslims and the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 applies to them. The learned counsel contend that while remanding the matter for fresh disposal, rendered conclusive finding that the Will is fraudulent. The learned counsel contend that the observation of the First Appellate Court that the Will is shrouded with suspicion, ought not to have been made when the witnesses have not been examined. There is a force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the First Appellate Court ought not to have made such an observation. Hence, the said finding is set aside as the matter is remanded to the Trial Court to consider the issue afresh with regard to proving of the documents Exs.D.35 and 36 and when the remand was made, coming to the conclusion that the Will is shrouded with suspicion, is erroneous.

With these observations, the appeal is disposed of. The matter requires fresh consideration in view of the observation made by the First Appellate Court with regard to proving of documents Exs.D.35 and 36 and I do not find any

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:18687 MSA No. 115 of 2023

HC-KAR

error in remanding the matter for fresh consideration by the First Appellate Court except the above observation. If any issue requires to be framed, the Trial Court can frame the issue or re-cast the issues and consider the matter afresh by

giving an opportunity to the respective parties.

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

MD

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31