Karnataka High Court
Majeeda Khanam vs Ahmed Khan on 7 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:24422
MFA No. 1551 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1551 OF 2025 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. MAJEEDA KHANAM
D/O HABIB KHAN
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
2. RABIULLAH KHAN
S/O HABIB KHAN
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
3. SAMEEULLAH KHAN
S/O HABIB KHAN
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
4. MUDASEERA KHANAM
D/O HABIB KHAN
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
Digitally signed by APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 4 R/AT NO.249
SHAKAMBARI
Location: High
SYED WADI, CHANNAPATNA TOWN
Court of Karnataka RAMANAGAR DISTRICT
5. ASMA ZABEEN
D/O LATE ZIAULLAH KHAN
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
6. NAZEEM KHANAM
D/O LATE ZIAULLAH KHAN
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:24422
MFA No. 1551 of 2025
HC-KAR
7. AZHAR MOHIN KHAN
S/O LATE ZIAULLAH KHAN
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
8. NAZIA FIRDOS
D/O LATE ZIAULLAH KHAN
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
9. SAKILA BHANU
W/O LATE MEHBOOB KHAN
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
10. SUMAIYA KHANAM
D/O MEHBOOB KHAN
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
APPELLANTS NO.5 TO 8 ARE
RESIDING NO.137/2
9TH MAIN ROAD
PADARAYANAPURA-560 026
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. IMRAN PASHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. AHMED KHAN
S/O LATE HAIDER KHAN
AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS
2. NOORJAN
S/O AHMED KHAN
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
SINCE (DIED) LRs R1, R3 TO 8 HEREIN
3. ZUBEDA KHANAM
D/O AHMED KHAN
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:24422
MFA No. 1551 of 2025
HC-KAR
4. HARSHID KHANAM
D/O AHMED KHAN
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
5. JAMID KHAN
S/O AHMED KHAN
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
6. NAZIDA KHANAM
D/O AHMED KHAN
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
7. NAVEED KHANAM
D/O AHMED KHAN
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
8. WAHID KHAN
S/O AHMED KHAN
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
9. REHANA KHANAM
D/O LATE HAMID KHAN
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
10. AMAN ULLAH KHAN
S/O LATE HAMID KHAN
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
11. HASINA KHANAM
D/O LATE HAMID KHAN
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
12. MAJEED ULLAH KHAN
S/O LATE HAMID KHAN
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
13. HIDAYAT ULLAH KHAN
S/O LATE HAMID KHAN
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:24422
MFA No. 1551 of 2025
HC-KAR
14. JABIR ULLAH KHAN
S/O LT SANA ULLAH KHAN
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
15. RAFI ULLAH KHAN
S/O LATE SANA ULLAH KHAN
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
16. SAFI ULLAH KHAN
S/O LATE SANA ULLAH KHAN
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
17. AYESHA KHANAUM
D/O LATE SANA ULLAH KHAN
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
18. IMRAN KHAN
S/O LATE SANA ULLAH KHAN
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
19. FEER KHAN
S/O LATE SANA ULLAH KHAN
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
20. AMEER KHAN
S/O LATE SANA ULLAH KHAN
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
21. HABEEB KHAN
S/O LATE HYDER KHAN
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 21 ARE
RESIDING AT ARIF PASHA MOHALA
KUMBARA BEEDI
SYED WADI CHANNAPATNA TOWN
CHANNAPATNA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJU S, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R3-R8;
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:24422
MFA No. 1551 of 2025
HC-KAR
R9-R15 SERVED;
R16-R21 - SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151
OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.02.2025 PASSED ON
I.A.NO.1 IN OS.NO.307/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAPATNA, DISMISSING THE
IA.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION
151 OF CPC.
THIS MFA HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT,
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT,
DELIVERED/PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is instituted under
Order XLIII Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, (for
short, "CPC") 1908, by the appellants herein, who are
aggrieved by the order dated 15.02.2025 passed by the
learned Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Channapatna in
I.A.No.I in O.S.No.307/2024. In the said application filed
by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with
Section 151 of the CPC, the appellants sought for an order
of temporary injunction restraining the respondents from
alienating the suit schedule property, more particularly
NC: 2025:KHC:24422
HC-KAR
Item No. 2, pending disposal of the suit. The Trial Court,
by the impugned order dismissed the said application
which has prompted the appellants to approach this Court
seeking redressal by way of an appropriate interim order
during the pendency of the suit.
2. The factual matrix of the case, as brought on
record, reveals that the suit schedule property originally
belongs to one Haider Khan, who is stated to have
acquired the same from the joint family income during his
lifetime. It is not in serious dispute that Haider Khan had
11 children, and the appellants and respondents are all the
descendants and legal heirs of the said Haider Khan.
According to the appellants, there was no formal partition
of the suit schedule properties during the lifetime of Haider
Khan, or at any point thereafter.
3. It is further case of the appellants that, the
properties continued to be held and enjoyed jointly by the
legal heirs of Haider Khan and were used commonly
NC: 2025:KHC:24422
HC-KAR
including for agricultural purposes by several members of
the extended family.
4. The appellants specifically contend that,
subsequent to the demise of Haider Khan, the name of the
first respondent was entered in the revenue records in
respect of the suit schedule property Item No. 2.
However, the said mutation is claimed to have been
effected solely on the strength of a statement given by the
siblings of the first respondent, without there being any
formal relinquishment or partition of shares. The
appellants allege that, the said mutation was not an act of
a transfer of ownership but, was made only for the
purpose of managing the property and does not confer
absolute ownership rights on the first respondent. Despite
this, the first respondent along with respondent Nos. 2 to
8, alleged to have executed an unregistered Sale
Agreement with third parties, namely P.Sumati Kumar and
P.Vimalchand, for the sale of suit schedule property Item
No. 2 for a substantial consideration of Rs.71,21,250/-, of
NC: 2025:KHC:24422
HC-KAR
which Rs.30,00,000/- is stated to have been received as
advance. The appellants contend that, this act of
execution of the Sale Agreement is not only without their
consent but, also against their rights joint owners in the
suit schedule property. The appellants further submit that,
they were never parties to the earlier suits bearing
O.S.No.248/2006 and O.S.No.431/2006 filed at
Ramanagara Court, nor were they aware of the
Compromise Decree that is claimed to have been passed
before the Lok-adalath on 14.09.2011.
5. The respondents, on the other hand, have
relied heavily upon those prior proceedings to contend that
the matter of ownership of the suit schedule property has
already been settled and that the appellants' claim is
barred by principles of res judicata and limitation.
However, it is the specific stand of the appellants that,
they were excluded from those proceedings and were not
afforded an opportunity to assert their rights therein;
NC: 2025:KHC:24422
HC-KAR
thereby rendering any decree passed therein not binding
on them.
6. This court, having heard the arguments and
perused records, is of the considered opinion that, the
Trial Court failed to examine the matter in its proper
perspective. While rejecting the application for temporary
injunction, the Trial Court appears to have placed undue
reliance on the previous litigation without adequately
considering whether the appellants were parties to those
suits and whether their rights were adjudicated therein.
7. It is well settled in law that, mutation entries in
revenue records do not, by themselves, confer title. It is
also a settled proposition that, the execution of an
agreement for sale, especially in respect of property
claimed to be joint property of the plaintiffs and
defendants, without the consent of all the legal heirs or
the tenants in common, cannot be deemed valid or
conclusive. Furthermore, when there is no registered
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24422
HC-KAR
partition deed or any document showing relinquishment of
rights by the appellants, and when the appellants have
made out a case that they are tenants in common, who
have been wrongly excluded from the process of
alienation, there exists a strong prima facie case
warranting protection of their rights pending adjudication
of the main suit. Thus, the balance of convenience, in
such cases, tilts in maintaining the present status of the
property and preventing any further alienation that may
complicate the dispute or prejudice the appellant's
interest. The principle of irreparable injury is also satisfied
as any sale or alienation during the pendency of the suit
may defeat the very purpose of the partition suit and
create third party interests which may be difficult to
reverse even upon success in the suit.
8. The denial of a temporary injunctive relief
merely based on a preliminary view of a limitation and res
judicata without properly testing the evidence and factual
assertions, appears to be premature and unjustified. This
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24422
HC-KAR
Court is also conscious of the fact that, the appellants
have sought the partition of the joint property and have
sought protection of the suit schedule property during the
pendency of the suit. Granting a direction to maintain
status quo would not cause any prejudice to the
respondents, as, it would merely preserve the existing
condition of the property until final adjudication.
9. In the circumstances, and in order to prevent
multiplicity of proceedings and avoid the creation of a third
party interest that may affect the rights of the parties in
the suit schedule property, this Court deems it just and
proper to direct that, both the parties shall maintain status
quo in respect of the suit schedule properties, more
particularly Item No. 2, in terms of its nature, possession
and alienation, pending disposal of O.S.No.307/2024 on
the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., at
Channapatna. Such a direction is necessary to ensure that
the fruits of litigation, if any, are not rendered negatory
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24422
HC-KAR
and that the rights of the co-sharers are not jeopardized
by acts of unilateral alienation.
10. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is
partly allowed. The impugned order dated 15.02.2025
passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.307/2024 stands set aside.
The parties are directed to maintain status quo as on the
date of this judgment with regard to the suit schedule
property, particularly Item No. 2, until the disposal of the
suit.
11. The Trial Court is requested to dispose of the
suit as expeditiously as possible and in accordance with
law, without being influenced by any of the observations
made herein which are only for the purpose of deciding the
present appeal with all its promptitude.
Costs made easy.
Sd/-
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
JUDGE
