- 1 -

NC: 2023:KHC:28668

RFA No. 220 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 220 OF 2022 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

1.

MR. AZAM BAIG @ AZAM PASHA

S/O BABA BAIG @ BABA SAHEB

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.

2.

SMT. GULNAZ

W/O SHAFIULLA

D/O BABA BAIG @ BABA SAHEB

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

3.

SMT. REHANA

D/O BABA BAIG @ BABA SAHEB

AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.

4.

SMT. SHAFIYA BEGUM

D/O BABA BAIG @ BABA SAHEB

AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.

NOS. 1 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT

NO. 1463, 10^TH CROSS, GANGONDANAHALLI

NAYANDAHALLI POST,

MYSORE ROAD

BENGALURU – 560 039.

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. KIRAN V. RON, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.

MR. NOOR BAIG

S/O LATE BUDAEN BAIG

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

RESIDING AT NO. 99, 2^ND MAIN ROAD

1^ST CROSS, NEAR OLD POST POLICE STATION

VALMIKINAGAR

BENGALURU – 560 026.

Digitally signed

by CHANDANA

B M

Location: High

Court of

Karnataka

- 2 -

NC: 2023:KHC:28668

RFA No. 220 of 2022

2.

MR. BABA BAIG S/O LATE BUDEN BAIG

AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS

R/AT NO. 1463, 10^TH CROSS

GANGAONDANAHALLI

NAYANANDAHALLI POST

MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 039.

(DECEASED ON 07.09.2017

HIS LEGAL HEIRS DEFENDANT NO. 4 TO 7

ARE ON RECORD)

3.

SMT. KAMARTAJ

W/O LATE KISMAT BAIG

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

4.

MR. AKRAM BAIG

S/O LATE KISMAT BAIG

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

5.

MR. SHABUDDIN

S/O LATE KISMAT BAIG

AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

6.

MRS. FATHIMA

D/O LATE KISMAT BAIG

AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

7.

MRS. TABASSUM

D/O LATE KISMAQT BAIG

AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

NO. 3 TO 7 ARE R/AT: NO. 39, W-139,

GOODSHED ROAD

K.R. MARKET, DR. AMBEDKAR COLONY

BENGALURU – 560 053.

8.

MR. ISMAIL BAIG

S/O LATE BUDAN BAIG

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

R/AT NO. 1463, 10^TH CROSS

GANGAONDANAHALLI, NAYANANDAHALLI POST

MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 039.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. ISMAIL ZABIULA ADVOCATE FOR R1;

R2 DECEASED AS PER CAUSE TITLE;

SRI. GIRISH S HEGDE ADVOCATE FOR R8)

- 3 -

NC: 2023:KHC:28668

RFA No. 220 of 2022

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, 1908

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.01.2022 PASSED IN

OS. NO. 6543/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND

SESSION JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT

FOR PARTITION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY,

THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The defendant Nos.4 to 7 in O.S. No. 6543/2014 on the file

of XII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for short ‘the

trial court’), have preferred the present appeal, aggrieved by the

impugned judgment and decree dated 10.01.2022, whereby the

said suit filed by the 1^st respondent-plaintiff for partition, declaration

and other reliefs in relation to Item No. 4 of the suit schedule

immovable properties was decreed by the trial court in favour of the

plaintiff.

2. The material on record discloses that the 1^st respondent-

plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the appellants-

defendants 4 to 7 and defendants 1 to 3 for partition, declaration

and other reliefs in relation to four items of immovable properties.

The said four items were described as site No.16 (Item No.1), site

No. 17 ( Item no.2), site No. 18 (Item No. 3) and site No. 19 (Item

No.4) in the schedule to the plaint. It was specifically contended by

- 4 -

NC: 2023:KHC:28668

RFA No. 220 of 2022

the plaintiff that the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 are brothers, all

of them being the children of late Budden Baig who had two more

children Hasmathunnisa and Banu. The defendants 4 to 7, the

appellants herein are the children of defendant No.1. It was

contended that the suit schedule properties were jointly purchased

by the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 under Notarized GPA dated

11.07.1992 and affidavit, also dated 11.07.1992. By virtue of the

said two documents, plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 became the

owners of all four items of suit schedule properties and they ha