Ajmuddin Vs Jainuddin S/O Ajmoddin Talikoti

3(b) MOHIYUDDIN S/O. AINUDDIN TALIKOTI, (SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S) AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER ORDER DATED 29.07.2025 ON I.A.NO.3 TO 14/2019 Sd/ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT V.S. KOUJALAGI

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11717-DB RFA No. 699 of 1999

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

3(b)(i) ZARINA W/O. MOHIYUDDIN TALIKOTI, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. UJWAL NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590016.

¶19

3(b)(ii) TANVEER S/O. MOHIYUDDIN TALIKOTI, AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. UJWAL NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590016.

¶20

3(b)(iii) ZARINA D/O. MOHIYUDDIN TALIKOTI, AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. UJWAL NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590016.

¶21

(SINCE 3(b)(ii) AND 3(b) (iii) ARE MINORS, REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER 3 (i)(a))

¶22

AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER ORDER DATED 29.07.2025 ON I.A.NO.12 TO 14/2019

¶23

Sd/ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT V.S. KOUJALAGI

¶24

3(c) AMEER HAMZA S/O. AINUDDIN TALIKOTI, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. BILLA MASJID, SOMWARPETH, TQ: KITTUR, DIST: BELAGAVI-591115.

¶25

3(d) MUNEER AHMED S/O. AINUDDIN TALIKOTI, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. BILLA MASJID, SOMWARPETH, TQ: KITTUR, DIST: BELAGAVI-591115.

¶26

3(e) SAMEER S/O. AINUDDIN TALIKOTI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. BILLA MASJID, SOMWARPETH, TQ: KITTUR, DIST: BELAGAVI-591115.

¶27

3(f) JAMEER S/O. AINUDDIN TALIKOTI, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11717-DB RFA No. 699 of 1999

¶29

3 -

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

R/O. BILLA MASJID, SOMWARPETH,

¶32

TQ: KITTUR, DIST: BELAGAVI-591115.

¶33

3(g) MAHE JABEEN S/O. AINUDDIN TALIKOTI, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. BILLA MASJID, SOMWARPETH, TQ: KITTUR, DIST: BELAGAVI-591115.

¶34

NOORAHMED OCC: DRIVER (SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S)

¶35

4(a) SMT. DILSHAD W/O. NOORAHMAD TALIKOTI, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. NARELIM, NAGMOD, GOA-403707.

¶36

4(b) ZAHOOR AHMED S/O. NOORAHMAD TALIKOTI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: MUSON, R/O. NARELIM, NAGMOD, GOA-403707.

¶37

4(c) NAUSHAD D/O. NOORAHMAD TALIKOTI, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: MUSON, R/O. NARELIM, NAGMOD, GOA-403707.

¶38

4(d) MUGUTSAAB S/O. NOORAHMAD TALIKOTI, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. NARELIM, NAGMOD, GOA-403707.

¶39

4(e) SMT. MUJEEB D/O. NOORAHMAD TALIKOTI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. NARELIM, NAGMOD, GOA-403707.

¶40

ABDUL HADI (SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S)

¶41

5(a) SMT. BEEBI SUMAIYA D/O. ABDUL HADI @ ABDUL AJEEZ TALIKOTI, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. KAIF MASJID, ASHED KHAN SOCIETY, BELAGAVI-590016.

¶42

- 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11717-DB RFA No. 699 of 1999

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

5(b) SMT. SABHA D/O. ABDUL HADI @ ABDUL AJEEZ TALIKOTI, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. KAIF MASJID, ASHED KHAN SOCIETY, BELAGAVI-590016.

¶45

5(c) SMT. SANA D/O. ABDUL HADI @ ABDUL AJEEZ TALIKOTI, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. KAIF MASJID, ASHED KHAN SOCIETY, BELAGAVI-590016.

¶46

5(d) SMT. SANIA D/O. ABDUL HADI @ ABDUL AJEEZ TALIKOTI, AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. KAIF MASJID, ASHED KHAN SOCIETY, BELAGAVI-590016.

¶47

5(e) SMT. SANAM D/O. ABDUL HADI @ ABDUL AJEEZ TALIKOTI, AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. KAIF MASJID, ASHED KHAN SOCIETY, BELAGAVI-590016.

¶48

…APPELLANTS

¶49

(BY SRI. V.M. SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE)

¶50

AND:

¶51

BINDURAO KRISTARAO KARKUN, (SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S)

¶52

1(a) RUKNUDDIN S/O. JAINUDDIN TALIKOTI, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. JANTA NAGAR, TQ: KALPADY, NEAR SDM HOSPITAL, UDAYAVARA, UDUPI.

¶53

1(b) RIYAJUDDIN S/O. JAINUDDIN TALIKOTI, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: PVT. SERVICE, R/O. PLOT NO.52 A, UJWAL NAGAR, 10^TH CROSS, NEAR SOOD MASJID,

¶54

5 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11717-DB RFA No. 699 of 1999

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

BELAGAVI.

¶58

AMENDMENT CARRIEDOUT AS PER ORDER DATED 10.08.2022 ON I.A.NO.15 TO 17 Sd/ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT V.S. KOUJALAGI

¶59

ABDUL BARI S/O. ABDUL MUNAFSHAIKHSURAB, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S

¶60

R2(a) SMT. JAINBUNBI W/O. ABDUL BARI SHAIKHSURAB, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. 862, A.K. DESHPANDE GALLI, MULLA GALLI, KITTUR, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-591115.

¶61

R2(b) ABDUL KHADER S/O. ABDUL BARI SHAIKHSURAB, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: NOT KNOWN, R/O. NEAR SRINAGAR ELECTRICAL OFFICE, SRINAGAR PUMP HOUSE, DIST: BELAGAVI-591115.

¶62

R2(c) ABDUL MUNAF W/O. ABDUL BARI SHAIKHSURAB, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: NOT KNOWN, R/O. NEAR SRINAGAR ELECTRICAL OFFICE, SRINAGAR PUMP HOUSE, DIST: BELAGAVI-591115.

¶63

R2(d) ABDUL SALAM S/O. ABDUL BARI SHAIKHSURAB, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. NEAR SRINAGAR ELECTRICAL OFFICE, SRINAGAR PUMP HOUSE, DIST: BELAGAVI-591115.

¶64

R2(e) SMT. FATIMABI D/O. ABDUL BARI SHAIKHSURAB, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. NEAR SRINAGAR ELECTRICAL OFFICE, SRINAGAR PUMP HOUSE, DIST: BELAGAVI-591115.

¶65

SRI. LINGARAJ S/O. BASAVARAJ, AGE: 79 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS, R/O. 2^ND LANE, 5^TH CROSS,

¶66

6 -

¶67

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11717-DB RFA No. 699 of 1999

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

SADASHIV NAGAR, BELAGAVI.

¶70

AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER ORDER DATED 29.07.2025 ON I.A.NO. 12 TO 14/2019 Sd/ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT V.S. KOUJALAGI

¶71

…RESPONDENTS

¶72

(BY SRI. AHAMED ALI RAHIMAN SHAH, ADVOCATE FOR R1(a & b), R2(c & e);

¶73

SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R2(a) DECEASED; R2(b), (d) & (e) ARE LRS OF R2, R2(a); NOTICE TO R2(b) & (d) HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶74

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC, 1908 PRAYED THAT THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.8.1999 IN O.S.NO.33/1996, ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE, SENIOR DIVISION, BAILHONGAL, TO BE SET-ASIDE BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶75

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

¶76

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶77

7 -

¶78

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11717-DB RFA No. 699 of 1999

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶81

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR)

¶82

This appeal is by the defendant Nos.1 to 5 in OS No.33/1996 is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 12.08.1999 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bailhongal (for short, ‘the trial Court’), whereby the said suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs for partition and separate possession of their alleged share in the suit schedule immovable properties was decreed by the trial Court in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs and against the appellants-defendants.

¶83

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and

¶84

learned counsel for respondent No.3 and perused the material on record.

¶85

The learned counsel for the respondent No.1(a), 1(b) and respondent No.2(c) and 2(e) remained unrepresented and did not appear in the matter despite grant of several opportunities.

¶86

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11717-DB RFA No. 699 of 1999

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

The respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs have instituted the aforesaid suit for partition and separate possession against the appellants-plaintiffs seeking partition and separate possession of their alleged share in the suit schedule immovable properties.

¶89

It is a matter of record that the suit schedule properties comprised of 3 items viz., schedule-A and schedule-B which are landed properties and schedule-C which is the house property.

¶90

The plaintiffs contended that one Ajmoddin Talikoti had two sons and one daughter viz., Amirhamja, Jainuddin and daughter by name Mohatbhi respectively. The aforesaid Jainuddin, second son of Ajmoddin Talikoti is plaintiff No.1, while Abdul Bari, S/o Mohatbi, sister of Jainuddin and daughter of Ajmoddin is plaintiff No.2. The aforesaid Amirhamja, brother of Jainuddin and Mohatbi expired on 23.04.1979 leaving behind the defendant Nos.1 to 8 to succeed to his estate as his heirs and legal

¶91

9 -

¶92

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11717-DB RFA No. 699 of 1999

¶93

HC-KAR

¶94

representatives. The defendant No.6 is the wife of plaintiff No.2. The respondent No.3(a) and (b) in the present appeal is said to be the purchaser of a portion of schedule-A from the appellants.

¶95

The plaintiffs contended that the suit schedule properties originally belonged to the propositus Ajmoddin Talikoti and upon his demise on 22.06.1929, the plaintiffs and defendants became entitled to their legitimate share in the suit schedule properties and since the requests/demands made by the plaintiffs to the defendants to effect partition and division of the suit schedule properties and put the plaintiffs in separate possession of their legitimate share in the suit schedule properties were not acceded to, the suit was filed.

¶96

The appellants-defendants filed the written statement specifically disputing and denying the various allegations made by the plaintiffs while the defendants admitted that schedule-C (house property) property

¶97

- 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11717-DB RFA No. 699 of 1999

¶98

HC-KAR

¶99

originally belonged to Ajmoddin Talikoti and that the parties are entitled to their legitimate share in the same. Defendants specifically contended that schedule-A and schedule-B properties being landed properties had been granted in favour of the Amirhamja son of Ajmoddin Talikoti by the Assistant Commissioner, upon abolition of the village offices and said property was a separate exclusive and self acquired property of Amirhamja, upon whose demise, the defendants became the absolute owners being lawful and peaceful possession and enjoyment of Schedule-A and Schedule-B properties. It was contended that the plaintiffs do not have any share or right over Schedule-A and Schedule-B properties and that the suit of the plaintiffs was liable to be dismissed.

¶100

Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

¶101

“ISSUES

¶102

1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that suit properties are the ancestral property of themselves and defendants and are in joint possession of the suit propositus?

¶103

11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11717-DB RFA No. 699 of 1999

¶104

HC-KAR

¶105

2. whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled to 2/5^th and 1/5^th share respectively in the suit property?

¶106

3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

¶107

4. Whether defendants prove that suit agricultural lands were the absolute property of Amirhamja father of deft.No.1 to 7 and husband of deft.No.8 as contended in para No.9 of the written statement?

¶108

5. Whether the valuation made for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is correct?

¶109

6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the decree as prayed for?

¶110

7. What order or decree?”

¶111

The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and documentary evidence at Exhibits P1 to P5 were marked while defendants examined defendant No.3 as DW-1 and one witness Sri.Kallanagowda Patil as DW-2 and documentary evidence at Exhibits D1 to D3 were marked on their behalf. After hearing the parties, the trial Court came to the conclusion that all the suit schedule properties were joint family properties and accordingly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants, who are before this Court by way of the present appeal.

¶112

12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11717-DB RFA No. 699 of 1999

¶113

HC-KAR

¶114

Learned counsel for the appellants/defendant

¶115

Nos.1 to 5 would reiterate the various contentions urged in the memorandum of appeal and invite our attention to the oral evidence and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, in particular exhibit D3 in order to contend that original propositus Ajmoddin having expired on 22.06.1929, Schedule-A and Schedule-B properties did not belong to him, nor was he is a holder of a village office or a wathandar or a holder of a wathan and it was the aforesaid Amirhamja who was the holder of the village office/Vathan prior to 1950 when the Bombay Padukana and Kulkarni Vathans (Abolition) Act, 1950¹ came into force and pursuant to the suit schedule-A and schedule-B properties standing/ vesting with the State Government, vide Government Order/Notification dated 22.09.1964, aforesaid Amirhamja, who was the holder of the resumed wathan land sought for re-grant of the land in his favour, which was granted in his favour vide exhibit D3 dated 06.06.1968. It was contended

¶116

1 Hereinafter for short the ‘Act of 1950’

¶117

13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11717-DB RFA No. 699 of 1999

¶118

HC-KAR

¶119

that the trial Court failed to consider and appreciate the material on record, which would clearly indicate that apart from the fact that the prepositus Ajmoddin Talikote was never the holder of a village office/wathan having expired on 22.06.1929, it was Amirhamja who was the holder of the wathan/village office subsequently and was performing the duties of the office as a Police Patil and as such the grant made in his favour is in his individual name and the same did not enure to the benefit of the remaining children of Ajmoddin Talikote or their legal representatives. It was also pointed out that the trial Court has proceeded on an erroneous premise that the original grant orders had not been produced, without appreciating that exhibit D3 is the order re-granting Schedule-A and Schedule -B properties in favour of Amirhamja and failure to appreciate this has resulted in erroneous conclusions. It was therefore submitted that the suit in respect of schedule-A and schedule-B properties deserves to be dismissed and the impugned judgment and decree insofar as it relates to

¶120

14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11717-DB RFA No. 699 of 1999

¶121

HC-KAR

¶122

schedule-A and schedule-B properties deserves to be set aside.

¶123

As stated supra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1(a), 1(b) and respondent No.2(c) and 2(e) remained unrepresented and they did not appear despite sufficient opportunity being granted and having regard to the fact that the appeal is of the year 1999, we are constrained to take up the same for final disposal.

¶124

The following points arise for consideration in the

¶125

present appeal:

¶126

i) Whether the trial Court was justified in holding that re-grant of schedule-A and schedule-B properties in favour of Amirhamja vide exhibit D3 dated 06.06.1968 enures to the benefit of all the parties to the suit.

¶127

ii) Whether the trial Court was justified in holding that the plaintiffs are entitled to their legitimate share in schedule-A and schedule-B property?

¶128

15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11717-DB RFA No. 699 of 1999

¶129

HC-KAR

¶130

iii) Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed to the trial Court warrants interference in the present appeal?

¶131

Since both these points are interlinked, they are taken up to be there for consideration.

¶132

Before we advert to the rival contentions, it

¶133

would be necessary to refer to the genealogical tree of the parties, which is as under.

¶134

AjmoddinTalikoti

¶135

(died 22/06/1929)

¶136

Amirhamja (Son) Jainuddin (Son) Mohatbhi (Daughter) (died 23/4/1979) (Plaintiff 1)

¶137

Abdul Bari S/o Abdul Munaff Jannatbi (wife) (Pltf.2) (Deft.8)

¶138

Jaibunbi (wife) (Deft.7)

¶139

Ajmuddin Nazirahmed Ainuddin Noorahmed Abdul Hadi Sharifbi (Deft.1) (Deft.2) (Deft.3) (Deft.4) (Deft.5) (Deft.6)

¶140

16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11717-DB RFA No. 699 of 1999

¶141

HC-KAR

¶142

As can be seen from the aforesaid genealogical tree of the parties, the original propositus Ajmoddin Talikoti expired on 22.06.1929, leaving behind two sons Amirhamja and Jainuddin and one daughter Mohatbhi. Exhibit P5 is the Death Certificate of Ajmoddin Talikote, which indicates that he expired on 22.06.1929, while Exhibit P4 is the Death Certificate of Amirhamja, which indicates that he expired on 23.04.1979. So also, exhibit D3 is the re-grant order dated 06.06.1968 under which the Assistant Commissioner, Bailhongal re-grants schedule-A and Schedule-B property exclusively in the name of the aforesaid Amirhamja. The said re-grant order reads as under.

¶143

No.DVW.RC/P-8 Office of the Asstt. Commissioner, Bailhongal, Dated 6-6-1968.

¶144

Read:1.Correspondence ending with Tahsildar No. M.N.SR-3255 dt. 22.11.66. 2. G.O.No.MRD.48 INM.63 Dt.29.9.64. 3. G.O.No.RD-17 INM.66 Dt. 17/21.3.66 ORDER

¶145

The Applicant Amirahamaja Ajamoddin Talikote of Kittur the holder of the resumed watan land mentioned below which stands resumed as a result of the coming late force of the G.O.No. Rd 48. INM 63 dated:- 22.9.64 as applied for regrant of the land and has credited the prescribed G.P. at six times of Sub-Try./ Bailhongal amounting to Rs.132/- and H.C.Rs.11.88 on 30.12.64 included in Rs. 264/- & 23-76 respectively.

¶146

17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11717-DB RFA No. 699 of 1999

¶147

HC-KAR

¶148

Village (Deserted)	Taluka.	Sy.No.	Area.	Assessment.
1) Parasanatti	Sampagaon	89A	7-6	19-8-0
2)”	“	89B	4-20	_2-8-0 _
I				_22-0-6 _

¶149

I, therefore regrant the land mentioned above to the said holder on the following conditions:-

¶150

i) that the applicant will hereafter hold the land as occupant within the meaning of the Mysore Land Revenue Act and shall primarily be responsible to pay the land Revenue to the State Government in accordance with the provisions of Mysore Land Revenue Act and the Rules, there under:-

¶151

ii) that the provisions of the Mysore Land Revenue Act and Rules, relating to unalianated land shall subject to the provisions of the Mysore Land Revenue Act 1961 apply.

¶152

iii) that the occupancy of the land shall not be transferreable or partible by notes and bounds without the previous sanction of the Deputy Commissioner, and except on previous sanction as is prescribed by Government from time to time.

¶153

iv) That the land should be used for agriculture only.

¶154

v) That the note of this regrant on New and impartiable Tenure should be kept in the column of other rights colums in V.P. VII-II in respect of this land after affecting the necessary mutations.

¶155

vi) That the regrant of the land should be subject to the provisions of the Mysore Land Revenue Act 1961.

¶156

vii) That the holder should appear before the Tahsildar to execute a Kabulayat in Form I (i) of the Land Revenue Rules within one month from the date of this order.

¶157

Sd/-xxx Asstt. Commissioner, Bailhongal.”

¶158

17. In pursuance of the aforesaid re-grant order in

¶159

favour of Amirhamja, the Revenue Authorities mutated the

¶160

18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11717-DB RFA No. 699 of 1999

¶161

HC-KAR

¶162

khata into his name as evidenced by exhibit D1-the mutation register extract showing the name of Amirhamja as the kathedar in respective of Schedule-A and B properties. The said mutation register extract is also produced at exhibit D2 which would indicate that after the demise of Amirhamja, the khata of the suit schedule properties were mutated into the name of the appellantsdependent Nos.1 to 6 and defendant No.7 herein. Exhibit P1 and P2 are record of rights pertaining to schedule-A and schedule-B properties, which also indicate the aforesaid entries in the name of Amirhamja and thereafter the appellants herein. In this context, it is relevant to state that apart from the aforesaid documentary evidence the parties have not produced any other evidence.

¶163

In the light of the undisputed fact that Ajmoddin Talikoti died on 22.06.1929, it was incumbent upon the plaintiffs to establish that Amirhamja was holding the wathan/village office on behalf of all the family members. However, except the bald and vague testimony of plaintiff

¶164

19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11717-DB RFA No. 699 of 1999

¶165

HC-KAR

¶166

No.1(PW-1), there is absolutely no evidence to indicate that upon the demise of Ajmoddin Talikoti on 22.06.1929, his eldest son Amirhamja was holding the village office/wathan on behalf of all the family members. On the other hand, the re-grant order at exhibit D3, the un-impeached, unchallenged and un-controverted evidence of defendant No.3 (DW-1) as well as the evidence of DW.2 who was also a wathandar and was working as a Police Patil and Mulki Patil of Kittur from 1941 to 1980 will clearly show that Amirhamja was holding the wathan/village office in his individual capacity and was not cultivating or occupying the lands on behalf of the entire joint family. In fact, DW.2 is none other than the cousin of the parties and categorically states in his evidence that even Amirhamja was working as a Police Patil. Nothing is elicited in the cross examination of DW.2 to impeach or discredit his testimony. Under these circumstances, in the absence of any material to establish that after the demise of the original propositus Ajmoddin Talikoti on 22.06.1929, his eldest son Amirhamja was

¶167

20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11717-DB RFA No. 699 of 1999

¶168

HC-KAR

¶169

holding the village office/wathan for and on behalf of the joint family coupled with the material on record which clearly establishes that he was holding the village office/wathan in his individual/exclusive capacity and was cultivating the land on his own and not on behalf of the family, we are of the considered opinion that the trial Court clearly fell in error in coming to the erroneous conclusion that the grant made on 06.06.1968 vide exhibit D3 in the name of Amirhamja would enure to the benefit of all the members of the family of Ajmoddin Talikote.

¶170

It is true that ordinarily, a grant in favour of any

¶171

one of the members of the family would enure to the benefit of the remaining family members; however, in the instant case, in the light of the undisputed fact that Ajmoddin Talikote expired as long back as on 22.06.1929 coupled with the materials on record, which conclusively establishes that subsequently Amirhamja was not only cultivating the lands in his individual capacity, but was also holding the village office/watan in his individual capacity

¶172

21 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11717-DB RFA No. 699 of 1999

¶173

HC-KAR

¶174

and upon coming into force of the aforesaid Act of 1950 and the land have been vested with the State Government in the year 1964, the same was re-granted exclusively to Amirhamja without reference to any of the remaining family members. It is therefore clear that in the facts and circumstances obtained in the instant case, the re-grant of Schedule-A and schedule-B properties vide exhibit D3 dated 06.06.1968 is in favour of Amirhamja would not enure to the benefit of the remaining family members, much less the plaintiffs, who accordingly would not be entitled to any share in the suit schedule-A and B properties.

¶175

A perusal of the material on record also indicates that upon the suit schedule-A and B properties being regranted in favour of Amirhamja, the Revenue records/khata were mutated into his individual name and upon his demise in 1979, the revenue records have been mutated into the names of the defendant Nos.1 to 7. Till the date of filing of the suit, there is complete silence and long unexplained and

¶176

22 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11717-DB RFA No. 699 of 1999

¶177

HC-KAR

¶178

inordinate delay on the part of the plaintiffs in approaching the trial court till 1996 when they filed the instant suit. This complete inaction and long unexplained and inordinate delay on the part of the plaintiffs in claiming a share in the suit schedule-A and B properties from 1968 till 1996 for almost a period of 30 years clearly indicates that they do not have any share in the suit schedule properties as falsely claimed by them as is clear from the conduct of the plaintiffs as noticed above.

¶179

Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in holding that the grant of the suit schedule properties in favour of Amirhamja was for the benefit of the plaintiffs also and that they are also entitled to their legitimate share in the suit schedule properties deserve to be set aside. Point nos.1 and 2 are accordingly answered in favour of the appellants and against the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶180

23 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11717-DB RFA No. 699 of 1999

¶181

HC-KAR

¶182

As stated supra, when dealing with point nos.1

¶183

and 2, we have noted that the present appeal is restricted to challenge the impugned judgment and decree, insofar as it relates to schedule A and Schedule B properties and the impugned judgment and decree in respect of C schedule house property is not the subject matter of adjudication in the present appeal.

¶184

We have also come to the conclusion that the suit schedule-A and B properties were the individual, exclusive, separate and self-acquired properties of Amirhamja and the re-grant in his favour did not enure the benefit of the remaining family members including the plaintiffs, as a consequence of which, the plaintiffs would not be entitled to any share in these properties and that the suit of the plaintiffs deserves to be dismissed in this regard.

¶185

It follows there from that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court, decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs for partition in respect of schedule-

¶186

24 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11717-DB RFA No. 699 of 1999

¶187

HC-KAR

¶188

A and B properties deserves to be set aside and the suit in

¶189

respect of schedule A and B properties deserves to be dismissed. Point No.3 is also accordingly answered in favour of the appellants.

¶190

25. In the result, the following:

¶191

ORDER

¶192

i) The appeal is hereby allowed.

¶193

ii) The impugned judgment and decree

¶194

passed by the trial Court, insofar as it relates to schedule A and Schedule B properties are hereby set aside.

¶195

iii) The suit of the respondent Nos.1

¶196

and 2/ plaintiffs in respect of schedule A and B properties is hereby dismissed. The impugned judgment and decree insofar as it relates to schedule C properties is hereby confirmed.

¶197