Dismissed¶66

Sri Rafeeqh Ahmed v. Sri Laiq Ahmed

Karnataka HC5 Dec 2025WP/5706/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Partition Act 1893 Section 3 buy at valuation; Section 3(2) competing shareholders highest price above court valuation; Section 2 sale instead of physical division; FDP.No.90/2018; O.S.No.6016/2013; final decree proceedings; public auction of suit house; co-sharer leave to buy; Article 227 certiorari; XX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge Bengaluru; writ dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Where two or more shareholders severally apply for leave to buy under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Partition Act, the court shall order sale of the share or shares to the shareholder who offers to pay the highest price above the valuation made by the court. ¶64

Sri Rafeeqh Ahmed Vs Sri Laiq Ahmed — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:51458 WP No. 5706 of 2021

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO.5706 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. RAFEEQH AHMED AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O SYED ABDUL KHALAQH, R/AT NO.15, 1^ST FLOOR, 17^TH CROSS, LAKKASANDRA, BANGLAORE - 560 030

¶9

SRI. SHAFI AHMED AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O SYED ABDUL KHALAQH R/AT NO.154, GROUND FLOOR, 17^TH CROSS, LAKKASANDRA, BANGALORE - 560 030

¶10

Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SRI. SHABBIR AHMED AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O SYED ABDUL KHALAQH, R/AT NO.15, 2^ND FLOOR, 17^TH CROSS, LAKKASANDRA, BANGALORE - 560 030

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. MAHENDRAPAL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NARAYANA REDDY M., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SRI. LAIQ AHMED AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O SYED ABDUL KHALAQH, R/AT NO.MIG-505, OLD ASTC COLONY,

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:51458 WP No. 5706 of 2021

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

HUDCO, HOSUR - 635 109, TAMIL NADU STATE.

¶19

SMT. MEHAR SULTANA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, D/O SYED ABDUL KHALAQH W/O ALTE SYED HAFIZ R/O NO.5/5, 4^TH CROSS RANGASWAMY LAYOUT LALJINAGAR BANGALORE - 560 030

¶20

SMT. NIGAR SULTANA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS D/O SYED ABDUL KHALAQH W/O ATHAULLA SHARIEF R/O NO.66, 7^TH CORSS S R NAGAR, NEAR DAIRY CIRCLE BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 030

¶21

SMT. ZAREENA SULTANA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS D/O SYED ABDUL KHALAQH W/O SYED IBRAHIM R/O NO.11, 1^ST CROSS LAKSHMI LAYOUT BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGLAORE - 560 076

¶22

SMT. SAMEENA SULTANA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS D/O SYED ABDUL KHALAQH W/O LATE AFSAR BAIG R/O NO.19, 10^TH CROSS SOMESHWARANAGAR JAYANAGAR 1^ST BLOCK BANGALORE - 560 011

¶23

SMT. RAZIKA BEGAUM W/O LATE ATHEEQH AHMED AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RA/T NO.15, 2^ND FLOOR, 17^TH CORSS LAKKASANDRA

¶24

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:51458 WP No. 5706 of 2021

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

BANGALORE - 560 030

¶28

MASTER SYED JABBAR AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS S/O LATE ATHEEQH AHMED R/AT NO.15, 2^ND FLOOR, 17^TH CROSS LAKKASANDRA BANGALORE - 560 030

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI. P.JAGANATHAN., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R3-R5;

¶31

VIDE ORDER DATED 03.02.2022, NOTICE TO R6 & R7 IS DISPENSED WITH;

¶32

VIDE ORDER DATED 28.03.2025, PETITION AGAINST R2 IS DISMISSED AS ABATED)

¶33

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 1.2.2021 PASSED ON I.A.NO.III IN FDP NO.90/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF XX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH32) VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOWED THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS ON I.A.NO.III IN FDP NO.90/2018, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC

¶34

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶35

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶36

ORAL ORDER

¶37

Petitioners are before this Court in this writ petition filed

¶38

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to set aside the order dated 01.02.2021 passed in IA.no.3 in FDP.No.90/2018 by the Court of XX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:51458 WP No. 5706 of 2021

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶43

FDP.No.90/2018 is filed by the plaintiffs in

¶44

O.S.No.6016/2013 to draw a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.6016/2013. Petitioners herein are respondent nos.1 to 3 in FDP.No.90/2018. They had filed IA.no.3 in FDP.No.90/2018 under Section 3 of the Partition Act, 1893 (for short, 'the Act'), seeking permission to buy the share of the petitioners in the FDP in the suit schedule property which is a house.

¶45

The said application was rejected by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶46

Learned Counsel for the petitioners having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition, submits that petitioners are the major shareholders in the suit schedule property. They are residing in the said house. Therefore, the Trial Court was not justified in rejecting their prayer made in IA.no.3, to permit them to buy the share of the petitioners in FDP.No.90/2018. He submits that the petitioners in FDP.No.90/2018 have also now filed an application before the Trial Court under Section 3 of the

¶47

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:51458 WP No. 5706 of 2021

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

Act. If the petitioners herein are not permitted to purchase the

¶50

share of the other parties, they will be put to untold hardship.

¶51

Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent has opposed the petition. He submits that liberty has been granted by the Trial Court to the petitioners herein to participate in the public auction of the suit schedule property. Therefore, no hardship would be caused to them in view of the order impugned.

¶52

Section 3 of the Act reads as under:

¶53

"3. Procedure when sharer undertakes to buy.—(1) If, in any case in which the court is requested under the last foregoing section to direct a sale, any other shareholder applies for leave to buy at a valuation the share or shares of the party or parties asking for a sale, the court shall order a valuation of the share or shares in such manner as it may think fit and offer to sell the same to such shareholder at the price so ascertained, and may give all necessary and proper directions in that behalf.

¶54

(2) If two or more shareholders severally apply for leave to buy as provided in sub-section (1), the court shall order a sale of the share or

¶55

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:51458 WP No. 5706 of 2021

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

shares to the shareholder who offers to pay the highest price above the valuation made by the court.

¶59

(3) If no such shareholder is willing to buy such share or shares at the price so ascertained, the applicant or applicants shall be liable to pay all costs of or incident to the application or applications.

¶60

Section 2 of the Act provides for the court to order sale instead of physical division of property in the partition suit, in the event it is found that the property cannot be reasonably or conveniently be partitioned, the court can, therefore, direct sale of such property and distribute the proceeds amongst the shareholders in terms of the final decree.

¶61

In the case on hand, the Trial Court has already passed an order under Section 2 of the Act for sale of the suit schedule property which is a house. Application under Section 3 of the Act which was filed by the petitioners herein has been dismissed. It is not in dispute that similar application is now filed by the respondents herein who are the petitioners in FDP.No.90/2018.

¶62

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:51458 WP No. 5706 of 2021

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

A reading of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act, would make it clear that, if there are two or more shareholders who severally apply for leave to buy as provided under subsection (1) of Section 3 of the Act, the court shall order sale of share or shares to the shareholders who offers to pay the highest price above the valuation made by the court.

¶65

A reading of the order impugned would go to show that liberty has been reserved to the petitioners herein to participate in the auction of the suit schedule property. In the event, petitioners offer higher price than the price offered by the other shareholders in the suit schedule property, then in view of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act, the court is bound to order sale of the share of the other party to the petitioners.

¶66

Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the order impugned does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶67

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶68

Sri Rafeeqh Ahmed v. Sri Laiq Ahmed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Rafeeqh Ahmed v. Sri Laiq Ahmed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. N. K. Premakumari Vs Shri. N. M. Siddu

R Shivamurthy Vs Smt. K Radha

Sri C Manohar Vs Sri S Meganathan

Sobha Forest View Apartment Owners Association Vs Sri. Chandrashekhar Gowda

Sri Anantharamaiah Vs Sri Rachaiah, Deceased by Hir Lrs

Mr George Pearson Vs M/S Sunrise Group