Karnataka High Court
Smt. Begambi Kom Abdul Sammad Sab Aliyas ... vs Maboobi W/O Dadapir Doddamani on 8 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11495
RSA No. 100086 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100086 OF 2025
(PAR/POS)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. BEGAMBI KOM ABDUL SAMMAD SAB
@ SAMMAD SAB MATTESABANAVAR
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
WARD NO. 36, GIRANNI CHAL,
KARWAR ROAD, HUBBALLI,
DHARWAD DISTRICT 580001.
2. ABDUL REHAM S/O. ABDUL SAMMAD SAB
@ SAMMAD SAB MATTESABANAVAR
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
WARD NO. 36, GIRANNI CHAL,
KARWAR ROAD, HUBBALLI,
DHARWAD DISTRICT 580001.
...APPELLANTS
MALLIKARJUN
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
RUDRAYYA
KALMATH
AND:
Digitally signed by
MALLIKARJUN
RUDRAYYA
KALMATH
Date: 2025.09.11
1. MABOOBI W/O. DADAPIR DODDAMANI
10:35:53 +0530
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD
RESIDING AT S.M. KRISHNA NAGAR,
OLD HUBBALLI,
DHARWAD DISTRICT 580001.
2. SMT. RUSTUMBI W/O. IMAM SAB DUNDOOR
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
RESIDING AT SATUR VILLAGE,
DHARWAD 580001.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11495
RSA No. 100086 of 2025
HC-KAR
3. SMT MUKTUMBI W/O. BHASHA MOMIN
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
RESIDNG AT KARADAGI VILLAGE,
SAVANUR TALUK,
HAVERI DISTRICT 580001.
4. SMT. IMAMBI @ HASEENA W/O. SHARIF
DAULANNAVAR
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
RESIDING AT AMARGOL VILLAGE,
DHARWAD,
DHARWAD DISTRICT 580001.
5. SMT. MEHABOOBI
W/O. KHADAR SAB MATTESABANNAVAR
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
RESIDING AT ASHRAY YOJANA PLOTS
NAVALUR VILLAGE,
DHARWAD 580001.
6. HEENA D/O. KHADAR SAB MATTESABANAVAR
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
RESIDING AT ASHRAY YOJANA PLOTS,
NAVALUR VILLAGE,
DHARWAD 580001.
7. AFSAL S/O. KHADAR SAB MATTESABANAVAR
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
RESIDING AT ASHRAY YOJANA PLOTS,
NAVALUR VILLAGE,
DHARWAD 580001.
8. MAHABOOBALI S/O. KHADHAR SAB
MATTESABANAVAR
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT
RESIDING AT ASHRAY YOJANA PLOTS,
NAVALUR VILLAGE,
DHARWAD 580001.
9. ABDUL SAB S/O. IMAM SAB
@ IMAM HUSSAIN MATESABANAVAR
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11495
RSA No. 100086 of 2025
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD
RESIDING AT NAVALUR VILLAGE,
DHARWAD 580001.
10. RAJE SAB S/O. IMAM SAB @ IMAM HUSSAIN
MATTESABANAVAR
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
RESIDING AT NAVALUR VILLAGE
DHARWAD 580001.
SMT AMEENA BI W/O. ABDUL RASUL MANIYAR
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S
11. AKBAR S/O. RASULSAB MANIYAR
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE
12. MAMMAD S/O. RASULSAB MANIYAR
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE
13. ISMAIL S/O. RASULSAB MANIYAR
AGED 55 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE
ALL ARE RESIDING AT KADE BAZAAR.
GANDHI NAGAR,
BELAGAVI-590002.
14. SMT. FATIMA W/O. NANE SAB UPPANAVAR
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD
RESIDING AT NAVALUR VILLAGE
DHARWAD 580001.
15. MOHAMMAD YASIN
S/O. SAYYED AKBAR SETHSANADI
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE
RESIDING AT MALAPUR, TAHASILDAR GALLI
DHARWAD 580001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAKESH M. BILKI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
NOTICE SERVED TO R3 AND R15;
R2, R4 TO R14-DISPENSED WITH)
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11495
RSA No. 100086 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS RSA IS FILED U/SEC.100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.02.2019 PASSED
BY III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, DHARWAD IN RA
NO.35/2019 AND CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
26.04.2019 PASSED BY III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
DHARWAD IN OS NO.73/2014 AND ETC.,.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA)
Appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment
and decree dated 14th February, 2019 passed in RA No.35 of
2019 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Dharwad
(for short, "the first appellate Court) whereby the Judgment and
decree dated 26th April, 2019 passed in OS No.73 of 2014 by the
III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad (for short, "the trial
Court"), came to be set aside by partly decreeing the suit filed by
the plaintiff.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are
referred to as per their rank and status before the trial Court.
3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, plaintiff-
Mehaboobi filed Suit in OS No.73 of 2014 before the tral Court
seeking partition and separate possession of the suit properties.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11495
HC-KAR
The same came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated
26th April, 2019. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit,
she preferred appeal before the first appellate Court in RA No.35
of 2019. The said appeal came to be allowed vide judgment and
decree dated 14th February, 2023 and the suit of plaintiff came
to be partly decreed, declaring that the plaintiff is entitled for
7/72nd share out of her father's 2/10th share in the suit schedule
item No.2 property by metes and bounds. Being aggrieved by
the judgment and decree passed in the Regular Appeal,
appellants have preferred this appeal. This court vide order
dated 03rd September, 2025, admitted the appeal to consider
following substantial questions of law:
"i) Whether the impugned judgment and decree
passed by the first Appellate Court in
R.A.No.35/2019 dated 14.02.2023 against the
deceased respondent No.8 who died on
01.03.2020, calls for interference?
ii) What order or decree?
4. Learned Counsel for appellants would submit that the
impugned judgment and decree passed by the first appellate
Court is erroneous and much against to the pleadings and
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11495
HC-KAR
evidence on record and hence is not sustainable in the eye of
law. He would submit that the first appellate Court decreed the
suit without even discussing the finding of the trial Court on
issue No.1 and recorded a finding that such a finding is
erroneous. He submits that the first appellate Court could not
have allowed the appeal. He would submit that the judgment
and decree passed by the first appellate Court is a nullity since
the same is passed against a dead person and respondent No.1
being aware of the same, has deliberately not brought on record
the appellants who are the legal representatives of deceased-
respondent No.8, as parties to the proceedings. The respondent
No.8 died on 1st March, 2020. The death certificate of deceased-
respondent No.8 is also produced. The judgment came to be
passed by the first appellate Court on 14th February, 2023.
Hence, he sought to remand the case to the first appellate Court
with a direction to provide an opportunity to the legal
representatives of deceased-respondent No.8 i.e. the present
appellants, and to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 has
not disputed the death of respondent No.8 who died on 1st
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11495
HC-KAR
March, 2020, as also, the death certificate produced by the
appellants. He has no objection to remand the matter to the
first appellate Court for the limited purpose of providing an
opportunity to the legal representatives of deceased respondent
No.8 to submit their arguments before the first appellate Court.
It is settled principle of law that the judgment and decree passed
against a dead person is nullity. In that view of the matter, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) Appeal is allowed in part;
ii) Judgment and decree dated 14th February, 2023,
passed in RA No.35 of 2019 by the III Additional
Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Dharwad, is set
aside;
iii) Matter is remitted back to the first appellate Court
to provide an opportunity to the legal
representatives of deceased-respondent No.8 who
are appellants herein i.e. Srimathi Begumbi w/o
Abdul Samad Sab @ Sammad Sab
Mattesabanavar and Abdul Rahman s/o Abdul
Samad Sab @ Sammad Sab Mattesabanavar,
after effecting necessary amendment to the
appeal memorandum. Appellants herein are
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11495
HC-KAR
directed to file amended title before the first
appellate Court;
iv) The first appellate Court shall provide an
opportunity to the parties to submit their
arguments on merits as also on IAs.4 and 9 filed
by the Appellants;
v) Thereafter, the first appellate Court is directed to
dispose of the case, afresh and in accordance with
law;
vi) Registry to send the copy of this judgment to the
first appellate Court for reference. The first
appellate Court is requested to dispose of the
case expeditiously..
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
lnn
CT-CMU
