Allowed¶91

Sri M Abdul Khuddus v. Sri Abdul Gafoor

Partition Act, 1893 – Sections 2 and 3 – preferential right to purchase – final decree proceedings

Karnataka HC3 Jul 2026WP/16586/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Art. 227 Karnataka HC: reasoned order required before rejecting application under Ss. 2 & 3 Partition Act 1893 for purchasher's preferential right in FDP; remand to XXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru; consideration in light of WP.No.15176/2020 auction first-preference order; RFA.No.1479/2012 upheld indivisibility of property; time-bound disposal (one week).

What did the court decide?

Order dated 06.04.2026 in the I.A. under Sections 2 and 3 of the Partition Act, 1893 in FDP.No.3/2006 set aside; matter remanded to the trial Court for fresh, reasoned consideration in the light of the order in WP.No.15176/2020, to be completed within one week; all I.As. in the writ petition closed. ¶91

Sri M Abdul Khuddus Vs Sri Abdul Gafoor — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶91

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court's dismissal of the application under Sections 2 and 3 of the Partition Act, 1893, resting merely on references to prior orders in WP.No.15176/2020 and RFA.No.1479/2012 without recording reasons or a finding on the claim of preferential right, was sustainable.

¶89

Court's answer

When an application is filed, the trial Court must consider it in its proper perspective and pass a reasoned order taking into account the case of the respective parties; a bare reference to earlier writ petition and RFA proceedings, with no other findings, does not satisfy this requirement.

¶89

Ratio / Principle

The trial Court ought to have recorded a finding explaining why the applicants were not entitled to a preferential right in respect of the scheduled properties before rejecting their application under Sections 2 and 3 of the Partition Act, 1893.

¶89

Key takeaways

The impugned order dated 06.04.2026 was set aside and the matter remanded to the trial Court, which shall reconsider the application in the light of the Co-ordinate Bench's order in WP.No.15176/2020 and complete the exercise within one week; accordingly the writ petition was allowed and all pending I.As. closed.ratio¶95

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Partition Act, 1893 — Sections 2 and 3 — preferential right to purchase — final decree proceedings — duty to give reasons. The petitioners, legal representatives of a deceased co-owner, applied in FDP.No.3/2006 under Sections 2 and 3 of the Partition Act, 1893 for permission to purchase the share of the co-sharer seeking sale; the trial Court dismissed the application by merely recalling earlier High Court orders in WP.No.15176/2020 and RFA.No.1479/2012, without any findings. Holding that a non-speaking dismissal is unsustainable and that the Court below ought to have recorded why the applicants lacked a preferential right, the High Court (Lalitha Kanneganti, J.), exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, set aside the order dated 06.04.2026, remanded the application for fresh consideration in the light of the Co-ordinate Bench order permitting parties to bid at the auction with first preference subject to prior leave, and directed completion within one week. Writ petition allowed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:33504 WP No. 16586 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 16586 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI M. ABDUL KHUDDUS S/O LATE ABDUL KAREEM SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S

¶11

SMT. HASMATHUNNISA, W/O LATE M. ABDUL KHUDDUS,.

¶12

SRI MUSTAQ AHAMED, S/O LATE ABDUL KHUDDUS, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO. 151, MAIN ROAD, KALASIPALYA, BANGALORE – 560 002.

¶13

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SMT. JASMIN D/O LATE ABDUL KHUDDUS, W/O A.M.FASI BAIG, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO. 198/1, DAS COMPOUND, RV ROAD CROSS, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE – 560 004.

¶15

SMT. HUMERA BEGUM D/O LATE M. ABDUL KHUDDUS, W/O M. ABDUL GAFOOR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.3, MOSQUE ROAD,

¶16

BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE – 560 004.

¶17

SMT. SAMEENA BEGUM, D/O LATE M. ABDUL KHUDDUS,

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:33504 WP No. 16586 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

W/O K. MAKSUD ASSLI, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.31, DURGAMMA TEMPLE STREET, KALASIPALYA, BANGALORE-560 002.

¶21

SMT. NAJMA ZABI, D/O LATE MABDUL KHUDDUS, W/O M.S.ZABI PASHA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT NO.64, 1^ST FLOOR, RANAJI RAO ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE – 560 004.

¶22

SMT. SHABANA BANU, D/O LATE M. ABDUL KHUDDUS, W/O SYED SHAH MAKSOOD ALI, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT S.B.M. ROAD, NELMANGAL TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 099.

¶23

…PETITIONERS

¶24

(BY SRI. MOHAMED NASIRUDDIN., ADVOCATE)

¶25

AND:

¶26

SRI ABDUL GAFOOR, S/O LATE ABDUL KAREEM, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO. 18/1, 18^TH CROSS ROAD, LAKKASANDRA, BANGALORE – 560 030.

¶27

SRI M. ABDUL LATEEF S/O LATE ABDUL KAREEM SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S.

¶28

SMT. HASEENA BEGUM, W/O LATE M. ABDUL LATEEF, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:33504 WP No. 16586 of 2026

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

SMT. HINA KAUSAR D/O LATE M. ABDUL LATEEF AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.

¶32

SRI MASOOD ALI, S/O LATE M. ABDUL LATEEF, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.

¶33

SMT. SHAMER BANU, W/O LATE M. ABDUL LATEEF, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

¶34

RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5 ARE R/AT NO. 8/1, 1ST FLOOR, 3RD CROSS, LALBAGH FORT ROAD, DODDAMAVALLI, BANGALORE - 560 004.

¶35

SRI M. ABDUL RASHEED, S/O LATE ABDUL KAREEM, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO. 11/4, COFFEE STREET, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE-560 004.

¶36

SMT. ASHYA BEE D/O LATE ABDUL KAREEM, SINCE DEAD BY HER LR'S SMT. ZAHEEDA BEGUM SINCE DEAD BY HER LR'S

¶37

SRI SYED SIRAJ KHAN, S/O LATE ZAHEEDA BEGUM, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.99, 5TH CROSS, P & T COLONY, B S A ROAD, BANGALORE-560 045.

¶38

SRI SHIRAJ AHAMED KHAN, S/O SMT. ZAHEEDA BEGUM, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

¶39

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:33504 WP No. 16586 of 2026

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

R/AT NO.8, 1ST CROSS, KOUSER NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 032.

¶42

SMT. SHAMEEM TAJ, D/O LATE ZAHEEDA BEGUM, SINCE DEAD BY HER LR'S.

¶43

SRI MOHAMMED ARIFPASHA, S/O LATE SHAMEEM TAJ, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.

¶44

SRI SYED ANJUM PASHA, S/O LATE SHAMEEM TAJ, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.

¶45

SRI SYED TAJAMUL PASHA, S/O LATE SHAMEEM TAJ, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶46

RESPONDENTS 9 TO 11 ARE R/AT NO.6, 2ND MAIN (REHA MEDICALS), BILAL NAGAR, PILLANNA GARDEN, 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 045.

¶47

SMT. NASEEM TAJ, D/O LATE ZAHEEDA BEGUM, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.100, SMALL QUARTERS, NEELASANDRA, BANGALORE-560 047.

¶48

SMT. NAEM TAJ, D/O LATE ZAHEEDA BEGUM, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT SULTANPALYA, DINNUR MAIN ROAD, RT NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 032.

¶49

SMT. JABEEN TAJ, D/O LATE ZAHEED BEGUM, W/O ABDUL REHMAN,

¶50

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:33504 WP No. 16586 of 2026

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NO.21, 3RD CROSS, PILLANNA GARDEN, BANGALORE - 560 045.

¶53

SMT. SHIREEN TAJ, D/O LATE ZAHEEDA BEGUM, W/O SRI JANI BASHA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO. 32/2, 7TH CROSS, SOMESWARANAGAR, JAYANAGAR, 1ST BLOCK, BANGALORE-560 011.

¶54

SMT. ZUBEDA BEGUM, D/O LATE ASHYA BEE, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT NO. 817, 1ST FLOOR, BESIDE APNA BAZAAR, BSA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 045.

¶55

SMT. RAFIA BEGUM, D/O ABDUL KAREEM, SINCE DEAD BY HER LR'S

¶56

SRI SIRAJULLA KHAN, HUSBAND OF RAFIA BEGUM, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.

¶57

SRI KHIZERULLA KHAN, S/O LATE RAFIA BEGUM, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.

¶58

SRI ZAMIRULLA KHAN S/O LATE RAFIA BEGUM, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

¶59

RESPONDENTS 17 TO 19 ARE R/AT NO.23,24, 4TH CROSS, NEW GURAPPANAPALYA (DRC POST) BANGALORE - 560 029.

¶60

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:33504 WP No. 16586 of 2026

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

SMT. RASHEEDA BEGUM, D/O LATE ABDUL KAREEM, W/O FARHATHULLA KHAN, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO. 35/2, 1ST FLOOR, 9TH A MAIN, 4TH CROSS, B.T.M. 1ST STAGE, BANGALORE-560 051.

¶63

SMT. NOORJAN, W/O LATE ABDUL SALAM, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS.

¶64

SMT. SHEERAN BANU, D/O LATE ABDUL SALAM, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.

¶65

SRI MOHAMMED HANEEF, S/O LATE ABDUL SALAM, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.

¶66

SMT. TASEEN BANU, D/O LATE ABDUL SALAM, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, RESPONDENTS 21 TO 24 ARE R/AT NO.5/4, 2ND FLOOR, (BESIDE DELUXE WHEEL ALIGNMENT) THIMMAIAH ROAD, SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 051.

¶67

…RESPONDENTS

¶68

(BY SRI JAGADISH J.R., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. ANAGHA J. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5 & R9; SRI M.D.RAGHUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R23(CP.NO.9109/26); NOTICE TO R2, R6 TO R8; R10 TO R22 & R24 ARE DISPENSED WITH V/O/D.03.07.2026)

¶69

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR

¶70

¶71

NC: 2026:KHC:33504 WP No. 16586 of 2026

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

RECORDS IN F.D.P.03/2006 PENDING ON THE FILE V ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (C.C.H-13) AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06/04/2026 AT ANNEXURE-A (IMPUGNED) HOLDING THE SAME AS ILLEGAL AND IRREGULAR.

¶74

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶75

ORAL ORDER

¶76

Aggrieved by the order dated 06.04.2026 passed in I.A. filed under Sections 2 and 3 of the Partition Act, 1893, in FDP.No.3/2006 by the XXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru C/c V Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, the petitioners, who are the LRs of the 1st respondent before the trial Court, are before this Court.

¶77

The petitioners herein have filed an application under Sections 2 and 3 of the Partition Act, 1893, seeking permission to purchase the share of the petitioner therein, who is asking for the sale of the schedule property. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is stated that the LRs of the 1st respondent, under prevailing circumstances, are willing and prepared to purchase the share of the petitioner therein at a valuation for sale. That came to be dismissed by the impugned order.

¶78

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:33504 WP No. 16586 of 2026

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

While dismissing the application, the trial Court recorded about the orders passed by the High Court in WP.No.15176/2020 and RFA.No.1479/2012, and observed that there is no merit in the contention of the counsel for the LRs of the 1^st respondent, and accordingly dismissed the application.

¶81

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the trial Court has failed to record any reasons for holding that the petitioners are not entitled for the relief as per Sections 2 and 3 of the Partition Act, and has dismissed the I.A. by recording irrelevant reasons.

¶82

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.23 submits that, the petitioner had not brought to the notice of the Court an order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP.No.15176/2020, wherein the petitioners had questioned an order dated 05.12.2020 passed in FDP.No.3/2026. The said petition was disposed of. In RFA.No.1479/2012, the High Court held that the Court did not find any infirmity, illegality or perversity in the judgment and decree passed by the trial Judge and dismissed the same. It is not in dispute that, as on the date when the order impugned was passed, no application was

¶83

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:33504 WP No. 16586 of 2026

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

filed under Sections 2 and 3 of the Partition Act by any of the parties. In RFA.No.1479/2012, considering the Commissioner's report, the Court held that the property cannot be divided, directed the trial Court to work out means for a suitable alternative as per law, and to complete the final decree proceedings. The Court further observed that, on perusal of the conditions, it would appear that, in the impugned order, the trial Court had permitted the parties to participate in the public auction subject to certain conditions, and accordingly, the Court had dismissed the writ petition. However, it was observed that both parties were permitted to participate in the auction sale along with the public, and first preference should be given to the parties, subject to obtaining prior leave of the Court within the stipulated period, on or before the next date of hearing. It is submitted that, in light of the same, they can always participate in the auction and also have first preference, and there is no illegality with the order impugned.

¶86

Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. The petitioner has filed an application under Sections 2 and 3 of the Partition Act. If the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought, the trial Court

¶87

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:33504 WP No. 16586 of 2026

¶88

HC-KAR

¶89

should have passed a reasoned order. Unfortunately, except for a reference to a writ petition and proceedings under the RFA before the High Court, no other findings are forthcoming from the order. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that only one portion of the property is going to be sold, whereas the nine portions are with the petitioner. The same is denied by the counsel for the respondent. Be that as it may, when an application is filed, the trial Court has to consider the same in its proper perspective and should pass a reasoned order, taking into account the case of the respective parties. There should have been a finding why the petitioner is not entitled to a preferential right in respect of the said properties. In those circumstances, this Court is passing the following order:

¶90

ORDER

¶91

i. The order dated 06.04.2026 passed in I.A. filed under Sections 2 and 3 of the Partition Act, 1893, in FDP.No.3/2006 by the XXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru C/c V Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court.

¶92

11 -

¶93

NC: 2026:KHC:33504 WP No. 16586 of 2026

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

ii. The trial Court shall consider the application filed by the petitioners in the light of the order passed by the Co-ordinate bench of this Court in WP.No.15176/2020.

¶96

iii. The whole exercise shall be completed within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

¶97

iv. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed .

¶98

v. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed.

¶99

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶100

MEG

¶101

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1

Sri M Abdul Khuddus v. Sri Abdul Gafoor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M Abdul Khuddus v. Sri Abdul Gafoor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. Safiya Vs Mr. K Shabir

M/S G G Finance Corporation Finance and Investment Vs v Thimma Reddy

Mr Abdul Jabbar Vs Smt Devarasam

Sri Anand Vs Sri Chinnappa Reddy

Smt Nagalakshmi @ Lakshmi Vs Sri K Nagendra Babu

Dinesh @ Rama Dinesh Ramappa Vs Sadashiva