SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Kar) 2097

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V.SRISHANANDA, J.
G. Suleman Sha Khadri Alliyas G. Suleman Sab S/o Mohamed Hussen Sab – Appellant
Versus
Nasim Unnisa W/o Mohammed Iqbal – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 390 of 2024
Decided On : 08-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Goutham Chand S.F.
For the Respondents: H.S. Prashanth, Ashoka T.

The court affirmed that issues of partition governed by Mohammedan law must be adjudicated on merits rather than dismissed on procedural grounds.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure - Order VII Rule 11 - Dismissal of application to reject plaint - Plaintiffs sought partition of ancestral properties; however, the defendant contended the suit is maintainable under Mohammedan law and that the plaintiffs had previously relinquished their rights. The court found the first defendant's application to dismiss the plaint was ill-founded as the issues raised required adjudication on the merits. (Paras 3.2, 10, 12, 14, 16)

(B) Legal Principles - Applicability of personal law - Court held that the principles of Mohammedan law govern the rights and partition of the parties involved and cannot be treated as a Hindu partition case. (Paras 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs, daughters of Mohammed Husain Sab, sought partition of agricultural lands previously owned by their parents. The defendant argued that the plaintiffs had no cause of action due to a prior partition and relinquishment deed, which they disputes.

Findings of Court:
The lower court rightly dismissed the application seeking to reject the plaint, stating the matter needs to be tried in full.

Issues: Whether the plaintiffs' claim for partition under Mohammedan law holds merit against the prior partition and relinquishment deed.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that issues regarding the validity of any prior partitions and relinquishment deeds under personal law could only be resolved in a full trial, and thus the plaint could not be rejected at this stage.

Result: Civil revision petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. background and facts of the partition suit. (Para 3)
2. arguments surrounding the suit's maintainability. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. court's reasoning on jurisdiction and applicable law. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. dismissal of the civil revision petition. (Para 18 , 19)

ORDER :

1. Heard Sri. Goutham Chand, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri. Prashanth, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 to 7.

2. First defendant is the revision petitioner challenging the dismissal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure in O.S. No.332/2023.

3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for the disposal of the present revision petition are as under:

3.1 Plaintiffs who are respondents No.1 to 6 in the revision petition filed a suit for partition in respect of the following immovable properties (hereinafter referred to as 'suit properties' for short):

SCHEDULE "A"

1. The agricultural land bearing Sy.No.30 totally measuring 3 acre 21 guntas, 2. The agricultural land bearing Sy.No.30 measuring 5 acre, Both are totally measuring 8 acre 21 guntas, situated at Doopadahalli Village, Hosur Hobli, Shikaripura Taluk, both are bounded by

E: Lands of Survey no 34

W: Lands of Survey no 20

N: Lands of Survey no 29

S: Kengatte Road

3. The agricultural land bearing Sy.No.23 totally measuring 3 acre 35 guntas, situated at Dhoopadahalli Village, Hosur Hobli, Shikaripura Taluk bounded by :-

E: Lands of Survey no 22

W: Lands of Survey no 14

N: Kere Ari.

S: Lands of Survey no-15.

4. The agricultural land bearing Sy.No.20 measuring 2 acre 1 guntas, 5. The agricultural land bearing Sy.No.20 measuring 5 acres, schedule 4 and 5 are situated at Dhoopadahalli Village, Hosur Hobli, Shikaripura Taluk, both are bounded by :-

E: Lands of Survey no 30

W: Lands of Survey no 21

N: Lands of Survey no 26

S: Kere.

6. The agricultural land bearing Sy.No.22 totally measuring 2 acre 6 guntas, situated at Dhoopadahalli Village, Hosur Hobli, Shikaripura Taluk bounded by :-

E: Lands of Survey no 21

W: Lands of Survey no 23

N: Kere Ari

S: Kengatte Road.

7. The agricultural land bearing Sy.No 107 totally measuring 1 acre 32 guntas, situated at Dhoopadahalli Village, Hosur Hobli, Shikaripura Taluk bounded by :-

E: Lands of Survey no 108

W: Kere

N: Lands of Survey no 113

S: Lands of Survey no 106.

8. The agricultural land bearing Sy.No.26 totally measuring 1 acres, 9. The agricultural land bearing Sy. No.26 totally measuring 4 acre 37 guntas, schedule item no 8 and 9 are situated at Dhoopadahalli Village, Hosur Hobli, Shikaripura Taluk bounded by :-

E: Lands of Survey no 29

W: Kere

N: Government Land

S: Kere.

SCHEDULE "C"

1. The agricultural land bearing Sy.No.165/2 totally measuring 1 acre 28 guntas, situated at Haliyur Village, Kasaba Hobli, Shikaripura Taluk bounded by :-

E: Remaining land in this survey no

W: Lands of Survey no 166

N: lands of Survey no 170

S: Lands of Survey no 164

2. The agricultural land bearing Sy.No.312/2 totally measuring 1 acre 25 guntas, situated at Haliyur Village, Hosur Hobli, Shikaripura Taluk bounded by:-

E: Lands of S C Shivanandappa

W: Property of Abdul Majeed Sab

N: Lands of Shivanandappa

S: Lands of Mohan Singh.

3. The agricultural land bearing Sy.No.21 totally measuring 2 acre 20 guntas, situated at Doopadahalli Village, Hosur Hobli, Shikaripura Taluk bounded by :-

E: Lands of Survey no 20

W: Lands of Survey no 22

N: Kere Ari

S: Kengatte Road.

3.2 Admittedly, parties are Mohammedans by community and plaint averments containing that suit properties are joint family properties cannot be countenanced in law inasmuch as, such a concept is alien to Mohammedan law.

3.3 Nevertheless, plaint averments would reveal that parents of the plaintiffs and first defendant were the owners of the suit property.

3.4 It is contented that there was a partition affected during the lifetime of the parents of the plaintiffs and first defendant, excluding the plaintiffs in the said partition and after death of the father o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top