Karnataka High Court
Smt. Fatima vs Sri. R. Sahib Khan on 19 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:47585
RSA No. 1295 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1295 OF 2024 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. FATIMA
W/O AKRAMA PASHA
D/O R. SAHIB KHAN
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/O ABBU STREET
BEAF MARKET, AHAMED NAGAR
CHANNAPATNA-562 160
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
2. SMT. RABIYA
D/O R. SAHIB KHAN
W/O MOSHIN ALI
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/O H.NO.570, SAYED SIRAJ MOHALLA
Digitally signed CHANNAPATNA TOWN-562 160
by DEVIKA M
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF ...APPELLANTS
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. VARUN JAYKUMAR PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. R. SAHIB KHAN
S/O LATE SAHUKAR RASOOL KHAN
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
1. SMT. JUNEE
W/O LATE R. SAHIB KHAN
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:47585
RSA No. 1295 of 2024
HC-KAR
SRI MUSTHAFA KHAN @ MUSTHAQ
S/O LATE R. SAHIB KHAN
SINNCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
2. KUM. KARAM KHATOON @ HINA
D/O LATE MUSTHAFA KHAN @ MUSTHAQ
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
3. KUM. SHIRIN KHATOON
D/O LATE MUSTHAFA KHAN @ MUSTHAQ
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
4. SRI. MIRA KHAN
S/O LATE R. SAHIB KHAN
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
5. SMT. FATHIMA
W/O LATE IMAM KHAN
AND DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF R.SAHIB KHAN
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
6. SRI. MOHAMED KHAN
S/O LATE R. SAHIB KHAN
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
7. SRI. RASOOL KHAN
S/O LATE R. SAHIB KHAN
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
8. SMT PEERAN BIBI
D/O LATE R. SAHIB KHAN
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
9. SRI IBRAHIM KHAN
S/O LATE R. SAHIB KHAN
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 9 ARE
ALL R/AT NO.1586, MAHADEVIA CIRCLE
THATTAKERE ROAD, GARDEN HOUSE
CHANNAPATNA-562 160, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:47585
RSA No. 1295 of 2024
HC-KAR
10. SMT. ANWARI KHATOON
W/O LATE N. HUSSAIN KHAN
D/O LATE R. SAHIB KHAN
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
R/AT 771, NEAR FARHA HOSPITAL
AND MAHADEVIA BUILDING
SATHANOOR ROAD
CHANNAPATNA-562 160
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
11. SMT. MASOO SAHEBA
W/O MUMTAZ SAHEB
D/O LATE R. SAHIB KHAN
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/AT MUTTON MARKET
INDIRA GOTTAGE
CHANNAPATNA-562 160
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
LATE SMT. CHAN BIBI
D/O LATE R SAHIB KHAN
W/O MOHAMMED KHASIM
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS.
12. SRI. MOHAMMED KHASIM
H/O LATE CHAN BIBI
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
13. MOHAMMED KAREEM
S/O LATE CHAN BIBI
NOW AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
14. SMT WAHEEDA KHATOON
D/O LATE CHAN BIBI
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
15. SRI MOHAMMED JAFFER
S/O LATE CHAN BIBI
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:47585
RSA No. 1295 of 2024
HC-KAR
16. SRI NASEEN AKHATAR @ ASKHIAR
S/O LATE CHAN BIBI
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
17. SMT. TANVEER KHATOON
D/O LATE CHAN BIBI
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
THE RESPONDENTS NO.12 TO 17 ARE
ALL R/AT NO.596, SYED SIRAJ MOHALLA
DAIRA, CHANNAPATNA-562 160
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
18. SMT. FARIDA
W/O NOORULLA
D/O LATE R. SAHIB KHAN
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT NO.107/25,
INDIRA COTTAGE
CHANNAPATNA-562 160
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
19. SMT. SABIA BIBI @ SAHI BIBI
W/O ALI JAN
RICE MERCHANT
D/O LATE R. SAHIB KHAN
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT M.M.ROAD
OPP. KALYAN MANTAP, BANNUR
T. NARASIPURA TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT-571125.
LATE SMT. ACHAMABIBI
SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS
20. ABDUL REHAMA KHAN
S/O H. IBRAHIM KHAN
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
21. AMINABI W/O AJAZ KHAN
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:47585
RSA No. 1295 of 2024
HC-KAR
RESPONDENTS NO.20 AND 21 ARE
R/AT B.M. STREET CROSS, NO.18B
CHANNAPATNA-562 160
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
22. SMT. HAJARAN BI
W/O C D KHASIM KHAN
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
R/AT KIRGAVAL
MALAVALLI TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT
NOW R/AT YAKOOB MIA MOHALLA
NO.128, BUDAN MULK STREET
DAIRA, CHANNAPATNA-562 160
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
23. SRI. MANJAN KHAN
S/O LATE NATHAD KHAN
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/AT DOOR NO.71/B1
OPP. ANJUMAN BUILDING
SATHNOOR ROAD
CHANNAPATNA-562 160
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
24. SRI. IBRAHIM KHAN
S/O LATE NATHAD KHAN
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT NO.16, 4TH STREET
"F" GOWRIPALYA
BENGALURU-560 026
NOW R/AT YAKOOB MIA MOHALLA
NO.128, BUDAN MULK STREET, DAIRA
CHANNAPATNA-562 160
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
25. SRI. MOHAMED KHASIM
S/O LATE MOHAMED IBRAHIM KHAN
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:47585
RSA No. 1295 of 2024
HC-KAR
R/AT DOOR NO.596
SAYED SIRAJ MOHALLA, DAIRA
CHANNAPATNA-562 160
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
26. SMT. MAAJAN @ SHAMSHUNNISSA
W/O BAVASA SAHEB
D/O LATE MOHAMMED IBRAHIM KHAN
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
R/AT NO.771, NEAR FARHA HOSPITAL
AND MAHADEVIA BUILDING
SATHNOOR ROAD
CHANNAPATNA-562 160
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
27. KHAN SAHEB
S/O LATE NATHAD KHAN
AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS
R/AT NO.771, NEAR FARHA HOSPITAL
AND MAHADEVIA BUILDING
SATHNOOR ROAD
CHANNAPATNA-562160
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
SMT. BURHAN BIBI @SAKINA BI
W/O LATE IBRAHIM KHAN
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS.
MOHAMMED KHASIM
S/O LATE MOHAMMED IBRAHIM KHAN
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/O DOOR NO.596
SAYED SIRAJ MOHALLA, DAIRA
CHANNAPATNA-561 501.
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
(ALREADY MADE AS PARTY AS
RESPONDENT NO.25 IN RSA)
KHAN SAHEB
S/O LATE NATHAD KHAN
GAS CUTTER
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:47585
RSA No. 1295 of 2024
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS
NOW R/AT NO.777/1
FARHA HOSPITAL
SATHNOOR ROAD
CHANNAPATNA-562160
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
(ALREADY MADE AS PARTY AS R27 IN RSA)
N. HUSSAIN KHAN
S/O LATE NATHAD KHAN
SINCE DIED BY HIS LRS.
28. SMT. SARWARI KHATOON
W/O LATE N. HUSSAIN KHAN
R/AT NO.258/3,
OPP. ANJUMAN BUILDING
CHANNAPATNA-562 160
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
29. MOHAMMED KHAN
S/O LATE NATHAD KHAN
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT DOOR NO.596
SYED SIRAJ MOHALLA, DAIRA
CHANNAPATNA-562 160
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
SMT. ACCHAMMA SAHIB BIBI
@ ACCHA SAHIB BIBI
D/O LATE BIBI SAHEBA BIBI
W/O MOHAMMED ALI
SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS.
30. MOHAMMED RASHEED
S/O MOHAMMED ALI
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT NO.78, C.K. ROAD CROSS
CHANNAPATNA-562 160
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:47585
RSA No. 1295 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.10.2018
PASSED IN R.A.NO.10/2014 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA., DISMISSING
THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE
DATED 9.12.2013 PASSED IN O.S.NO.14/2012 ON THE FILE OF
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAPATTANA.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This matter was listed for orders on I.A.No.1/2024
and there is a delay of 1327 days in filing the second
appeal.
2. The reason assigned in support of the
application is that when they came to know in the month
of April, 2022 that elder brothers defendant Nos.1(c), (e),
(f) brought some of the properties for sale by obtaining
decree in O.S.No.14/2012 and confirming R.A.No.10/2014,
then with our respective husbands, we contacted local
advocate and the advocate advised to file a separate suit.
NC: 2025:KHC:47585
HC-KAR
Accordingly, they filed suit in O.S.No.228/2022 and
another suit in O.S.No.133/2022 and those two suits are
pending. But in 2024, when they met advocate at
Bangalore, advised to file a second appeal. Hence, they
filed this second appeal and there is a delay.
3. In the affidavit in paragraph No.3, it is stated
that other brothers had taken signatures on 4 vakalaths
and written statement. It appears without their consent
and knowledge, they filed the vakalath in R.A.No.10/2014
arraying them as appellants and the same was also an
eye-wash and there was no intention to set aside or
modify the judgment and decree passed in
O.S.No.14/2012.
4. Having considered these reasons and also
looking into the material on record, first appeal was
dismissed vide order dated 27.10.2018 and present
second appeal is filed in 2024 after lapse of 6 years.
Having considered the reasons assigned, even though they
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47585
HC-KAR
were having the knowledge about dismissal of the appeal
in 2022, instead of filing the appeal, it is sworn to that
they have filed two other suits and the fact that they were
having knowledge about the order passed by the First
Appellate Court dismissing the appeal is not in dispute and
further submission that in 2024, an advice was made to
file an appeal cannot be accepted and the reasons
assigned are not sufficient to condone the delay and each
day delay has to be explained by the appellants. When
such being the case, I do not find any ground to condone
the delay. Hence, no ground is made out to condone the
delay of 1,327 days in filing the appeal, since the
appellants themselves have filed the appeal before the
First Appellate Court and not pursued the matter diligently
and only with an intention to condone the delay made the
allegation against other brothers that they have taken the
signature without their consent in vakalath to file the
appeal and also written statement and the said statement
cannot be believed.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47585
HC-KAR
Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2024 is rejected.
Consequently, the regular second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
ST
