[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Shri Ashraff vs Smt. Ameena W/O Shafi Killedar on 7 April, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5091-DB
RFA No. 100602 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100602 OF 2025 (PAR/POS)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI ASHRAFF S/O. AHMEDSAB MUJAWAR,
AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. H.NO. 3778, BAGWAN GALLI,
BELAGAVI, PIN CODE: 590001.
2. SHRI AKBAR S/O. AHMEDSAB MUJAWAR,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. H.NO. 3778, BAGWAN GALLI,
BELAGAVI, PIN CODE: 590001.
3. SHRI AFZAL S/O. AHMEDSAB MUJAWAR,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. H.NO. 3778, BAGWAN GALLI,
VINAYAKA BELAGAVI, PIN CODE: 590001.
BV
Digitally signed by 4. SHRI AMJAD S/O. AHMEDSAB MUJAWAR,
VINAYAKA B V
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
Date: 2026.04.09
10:10:43 +0530 R/O. H.NO. 3778, BAGWAN GALLI,
BELAGAVI, PIN CODE: 590001.
5. SHRI ANWAR S/O. AHMEDSAB MUJAWAR,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. H.NO. 3778, BAGWAN GALLI,
BELAGAVI, PIN CODE: 590001.
6. SHRI ABDUL RASHID S/O. AHMEDSAB MUJAWAR,
AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. NO. 406, RAGHUNATH PETH,
ANGOL, BELAGAVI, PIN CODE: 590001.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. B.M. PATIL AND SRI. H.N. DESAI, ADVOCATES.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5091-DB
RFA No. 100602 of 2025
HC-KAR
AND:
1. SMT. AMEENA W/O. SHAFI KILLEDAR,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. TIPPU SULTAN NAGAR, PEERNAWADI,
TAL/DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN CODE: 590014.
2. SMT. ABIDA W/O. ABDULLATIF DEVAPURE,
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. AZAD GALLI, HIREBAGEWADI,
TAL/DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN CODE: 591109.
3. SMT. JAMEELA W/O. GIYASAHMAD MANIYAR,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. 7TH CROSS, SADASHIV NAGAR,
BELAGAVI, PIN CODE: 590001.
4. SHRI SHAHEED S/O. GOUSESAB SANADI @ KHOTWAL,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. MUSLIM GALLI,
ANGOL, BELAGAVI,
TAL/DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN CODE: 590001.
5. SHRI SAJEED S/O. GOUSESAB SANADI @ KHOTWAL,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. MUSLIM GALLI,
ANGOL, BELAGAVI,
TAL/DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN CODE: 590001.
6. SHRI WAJID S/O. GOUSESAB SANADI @ KHOTWAL,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. MUSLIM GALLI,
ANGOL, BELAGAVI,
TAL/DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN CODE: 590001.
7. SHRI RAHIM KUTUBUDDIN MULLA,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC. NOT KNOWN,
R/O. 13TH CROSS, UJWAL NAGAR (GANDHI NAGAR)
BELAGAVI, PIN CODE: 590016.
8. SHRI TAHIR SHAKIL MULLA,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. 13TH CROSS, UJWAL NAGAR (GANDHI NAGAR)
BELAGAVI, PIN CODE: 590016.
9. SHRI RASUL K. HUDALI,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5091-DB
RFA No. 100602 of 2025
HC-KAR
R/O. 13TH CROSS, UJWAL NAGAR (GANDHI NAGAR)
BELAGAVI, PIN CODE: 590016.
10. SHRI JAFAR SADIQ KAREEMSAB PATEVEGAR,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. 13TH CROSS, UJWAL NAGAR (GANDHI NAGAR)
BELAGAVI, PIN CODE: 590016.
11. SMT. SHABANA MOHAMMAD RAFIQ BAGWAN,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. 13TH CROSS, UJWAL NAGAR (GANDHI NAGAR)
BELAGAVI, PIN CODE: 590016.
12. SMT. SHAMIN BANU NAJIRAHEMMAD BUDLEGAR,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. 13TH CROSS, UJWAL NAGAR (GANDHI NAGAR)
BELAGAVI, PIN CODE: 590016.
13. SHRI ASHIF Z. MULLA,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O. 13TH CROSS, UJWAL NAGAR (GANDHI NAGAR)
BELAGAVI, PIN CODE: 590016.
14. SHRI SHAKIL S/O. GOUSESAB SANADI @ KHOTWAL,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. MUSLIM GALLI, ANGOL, BELAGAVI,
TAL/DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN CODE: 590001.
15. SHRI MALLIK S/O. MOHAMMEDGOUS ASHRAF,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. 4TH CROSS, NEW GANDHI NAGAR,
BELAGAVI, PIN CODE: 590001.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.08.2025 PASSED
BY THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM BELAGAVI IN
O.S. NO.359/2023 AND DISMISS THE SUIT OF THE
PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENTS AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5091-DB
RFA No. 100602 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
This appeal is filed by defendant Nos.1 to 6 challenging the
judgment and decree dated 04.08.2025 passed in OS
No.359/2023 on the file of learned I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and
CJM, Belagavi.
2. The records disclose that the suit is filed for the relief
of partition and separate possession of their legitimate share
against the defendants and for injunction restraining the
defendants, their agents, servants and henchmen for anybody
acting on their behalf from creating 3rd party interest either by
sale, gift, exchange, mortgage or any other mode including the
share held by the plaintiffs.
3. The main contention of the plaintiffs before the trial
Court was that the suit agricultural land bearing RS No.1075/5
measuring 1 acre 26 guntas of Belagavi, was originally held by
Smt.Masabi Ibrahimsab Ghotekhor and she has executed a
registered gift deed in favour of Ahmadsab Kashimsab Mujawar
way back in the year 1950. There was a dispute between the
tenant and the owner, which has been settled and as per
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5091-DB
HC-KAR
settlement in the year 2013, sub-division took place in the said
land and the new survey numbers were assigned as per MR
No.T26 dated 22.09.2015. Thus, the suit property measuring 0.33
guntas is allotted to the share of the present plaintiffs and
defendant Nos.1 to 6 and the names of defendants Nos.1 to 6
recorded in the extract in respect of RS No.1075/7, measuring
0.33 guntas. It is contented that the suit house properties are also
recorded in the name of Ahmadsab Kashimsab Mujawar during his
lifetime. Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 6 behind the back of plaintiffs
got recorded their names in respect of property bearing CTS
No.3778/1B of Kotaval Galli, Belagavi in the year 1988 and
subsequently on 21.03.1997 got inserted the name of defendant
No.3 to 5 in the City Survey records pertaining to the said
property illegally and also contended that similarly, defendant
Nos.1 to 6 also got recorded their names on the extract pertaining
to House No.406 of Raghunath Peth, Angol now numbered as CTS
No.5122, behind the back of the plaintiffs at the time of extension
of City Survey to the area of Raghunath Peth, Angol, Belagavi. It
is further contented that the suit agricultural lands and house
properties are recorded in the name of Ahmadsab Kashimsab
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5091-DB
HC-KAR
Mujawar, who is the father of the plaintiff Nos.1 to 3, grandfather
of plaintiff Nos.4 to 6 and defendant No.14 and the father of the
defendant Nos.1 to 6. The said Ahmadsab Kashimsab Mujawar
died in the year 2010, whereas his wife died after 5 months from
the death of her husband. Ahmadsab Kashimsab Mujawar died
leaving behind 4 daughters and 6 sons and on the death of Sri.
Ahmadsab, the succession opens. Therefore, the plaintiffs along
with their later sisters Smt.Jaibunnisa and defendant Nos.1 to 6
has inherited their respective shares as tenants in common and
there was no partition between the legal heirs of Ahmadsab till
this date, but the plaintiffs and defendants are in joint possession
and enjoyment of suit schedule properties and tenants in
common. It is further contended that they were having full faith,
trust and confidence on the defendant Nos.1 to 6, but illegally got
changed the revenue records into their name without any notice
to the present plaintiffs and hence, the plaintiffs have approached
the defendant Nos.1 to 6 and enquired about the illegal
transactions and they started denying their right and hence,
without any other alternative, filed the present suit for the relief of
petition and for permanent injunction. It is contended that
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5091-DB
HC-KAR
defendant Nos.1 to 6 are not having any exclusive title on the suit
properties and started negotiating to create a third party interest
in respect of the suits schedule properties.
4. In pursuance of the suit, notice was issued and
defendant Nos.1 to 6 appeared through counsel and they have
not filed any written statement, even not contested the matter
and even not cross examined PW1, who has been examined
before the trial Court and documents at Exs.P1 to P18 are also not
disputed.
5. The trial Court having taken note of evidence available
on record, comes to the conclusion that when the suit summons
were served and appeared through counsel, but they did not
choose to file any written statement and even not contested the
matter. The trial Court in paragraph No.4 also has taken note of
the documents, which clearly disclose that in the revenue records,
the name of Ahmadsab Kashimsab Mujawar i.e. the father of the
plaintiff Nos.1 to 3, grandfather of plaintiff Nos.4 to 6 and
defendant No.14 and father of defendant Nos.1 to 6, is shown as
the owner of the property and without any registered document
created the Wardi and based on that, the defendants Nos.1 to 6
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5091-DB
HC-KAR
are making an attempt to transfer their own ownership. The trial
Court also having taken note of the judgment of Apex Court in the
case of Balwant Singh and another etc. vs. Daulat Singh
dead by LRs.1 and so also the judgment in the case of
Gurunath Manohar Pavaskar and Others Vs. Nagesh
Siddappa Navalgund ad others2 comes to the conclusion that
mere entry in the revenue records does not convey any title to
the said property and when the defendants also not disputed the
relationship and also the property stands in the name of deceased
Ahmadsab Kashimsab Mujawar and the plaintiffs and defendants
are the legal heirs of the said Ahmadsab Kashimsab Mujawar,
answered the point No.1 in the affirmative and also in respect of
point No.2, taking note of the devolution of the property to the
legal heirs of Ahmadsab Kashimsab Mujawar granted the decree.
6. When the appellants have not filed the written
statement and not disputed the relationship between the parties
and also the documents which have been filed before the trial
Court, now counsel appearing for the appellants would contend
that an opportunity has to be given.
AIR 1997 SC 2719
AIR 2008 SC 901
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5091-DB
HC-KAR
7. The suit was filed in the year 2023 and the
appellants/defendants No.1 to 6 represented through counsel, but
not contested the matter and also not disputed the property
stands in the name of deceased Ahmadsab Kashimsab Mujawar
and subsequently got changed the property only by way of Wardi
and no any registered documents. When such being the case, the
trial Judge has not committed any error in granting the relief as
sought. However, the trial Court while passing the judgment,
made an observation that the plaintiffs are entitled for their
legitimate shares jointly in the suit schedule properties as per law,
but not demarcated the shares. However, the same cannot be a
ground to reverse the judgment. With regard to the legitimate
share is concerned, the same can be considered by the FDP Court
while allotting the share and granting the relief. When there is no
dispute with regard to the relationship as well as the property
devolves upon deceased Ahmadsab Kashimsab Mujawar as per
the gift deed as stated in the plaint and all legal heirs are entitled
for a share. Hence, we do not find any ground to admit the
appeal.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5091-DB
HC-KAR
8. In view of the discussions made above, we pass the
following order:
ORDER
i) The appeal is dismissed.
ii) Pending applications, if any, do not
survive for consideration and accordingly,
they are disposed of.
SD/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SD/-
(B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
JUDGE
JTR
CT:PA
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 12
