2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 53033
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2022
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.200082/2017
Between:
Ahmed Bee W/o Late Mohd. Rafiq,
Age: 36 years, Occ: Agri. & Household,
R/o Near Water Tank, Ring road,
Jewaragi, Dist: Kalaburagi,
Through the SPA Holder named
Munir S/o Gafoor Sab,
Age: 30 years, Occ: Agri. & Business,
R/o Bhimnagar, Proper Bhalki,
Tq. & Dist: Bidar.
… Appellant
(By Sri. Sachin M.Mahajan, Advocate)
And:
1.
Akhila W/o Gafoor Sab,
Age: 71 years, Occ: Agri. & Household,
R/o Bhimnagar, Proper Bhalki,
Dist: Bidar-585 401.
2.
Mahemooda Bee
W/o Shaikh Sattar Miyan,
Age: 61 years, Occ: Agri. & Household,
2
R/o Village Kinni, Tq: Humnabad,
Dist: Bidar-585 401.
3.
Zakiya Bee W/o Dastagir Patel,
Age: 51 years, Occ: Agri. & Household,
R/o Village Tadola,
Tq: Basavakalyan, Dist: Bidar-585 401.
4.
Saleem S/o Hussain Sab,
(Wrongly shown as son of Mirza Zululla
Baig in the records),
Age: 46 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o Village Markhal, Tq. Basavakalyan,
Now residing at Bhimnagar, Gunj,
Bidar-585 401.
5.
Saleem Gouse S/o Ghulam Gouse,
Age: 61 years, Occ: Business,
R/o Raja Bagh, Proper Bidar-585 401.
6.
Mohd. Siraj Ahmed
S/o Mohd. Abdul Majeed,
Age: 61 years, Occ: Business,
R/o Raja Bagh, Proper Bidar-585 401.
… Respondents
(R1, R3 - Served;
R2, R4, R5, R6 - Held sufficient v/o dated 19.10.2020)
This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of
Civil Procedure Code, praying to set aside the judgment
and decree dated 28.02.2017 passed by the learned Senior
Civil Judge & JMFC at Bhalki in O.S.No.24/2016 and
consequently be pleased to allow the suit filed by the
plaintiff.
This appeal coming on for Further Argument this
day, Anant Ramanath Hegde J., delivered the following:
3
The plaintiff in O.S.No.24/2016 is before this court
under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging
the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2017 as the suit of
the plaintiff for the relief of declaration and partition is
dismissed. The plaintiff has sought a declaration that the
sale-deed executed on 11.11.1998 registered at Document
No.3234/98-99 before the Sub-Registrar, Bhalki is null and
void. The purchasers under the said sale-deed are
defendants No.5 and 6.
2.
The genealogy of the parties is as under :-
Mirza Zulullah Baig S/o Mirza Khairulla Baig
(Died on 11.11.1996)
Masoom Bee @ Rasheeda Bee
(Died on 12.08.2008)
Akhila Bee
Sameeda Bee
(died on 28.02.2016)
Zakiya Bee
Ahmed Bee
4
3.
According to the plaintiff, Mirza Zululla Baig the
propositus died in the year 1996 leaving behind his wife
Masoom Bee, who died in the year 2008. According to the
plaintiff, the above named Mirza Zululla Baig and Masoom
Bee had three sisters namely Akhila – the defendant No.1,
Mahemooda Bee– the defendant No.2 and the mother of
the plaintiff – defendant No.3, Sameeda Bee. It is stated
that Sameeda Bee died in the year 2016.
4.
According to the plaintiff, her grand father
Mirza Zululla Baig and grand mother Mahemooda Bee had
no male issues. It is contended that after their demise
there is no partition in the family.
5.
The plaintiff contended that the defendant
No.4 claiming to be the son of deceased Mirza Zululla Baig
and Masoom Bee executed the sale-deed in favour of
defendant Nos.5 and 6 under registered sale-deed dated
11.11.1998 in respect of the suit schedule property. The
plaintiff
contends
that
the
defendant
No.4
has
impersonated himself as the son of the deceased Mirza
5
Zululla Baig though he is not the son. According to the
plaintiff, the sale-deed does not convey any title in favour
of defendants No.5 and 6 and claimed partition of her
share in the suit schedule properties.
6.
Defendants though served with the notice
remained exparte. The plaintiff led evidence through her
Power of Attorney Holder and also examined the PW.2 and
15 documents were marked on behalf of the plaintiff.
Obviously,
there
was no
cross-examination
as
the
defendants remained exparte. Though there was no
contest to the claim made by the plaintiff, the suit is
dismissed on the ground that the requirement of Order VI
Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure is not met in the
pleadings. The trial court has held that in the absence of
specific plea relating to fraud and impersonation, the suit
cannot be decreed. Since the sale-deed was executed on
11.11.1998 and the mother of the plaintiff died in the year
2016 and also on the ground that remaining two daughters
of late Mirza Zululla Baig namely the defendants No.1 and
6
2 have not challenged the sale transaction, the suit is
dismissed.
7.
Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the
plaintiff is in appeal.
Even before this court the
defendants/respondents though served with the notice
have remained absent.
8.
Heard Sri Sachin M.Mahajan appearing for the
appellant.
9.
Following point arises for considraiton is :-
"Whether
the
tiral
court
is
justified
in
dismissing the suit for want of partiuclars as
contemplated under Order VI Rule 4 of Code of Civil
Procedure ?"
10.
Learned counsel for the appellant has also
produced the memo along with documents viz. the copy of
the appeal memo before the Assistant Commissioner filed
by the grand mother of the plaintiff Masoom Bee, certified
copy of the written submission before the Assistant
7
Commissioner as well as the certified copy of the order
passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 06.05.1999 in
Appeal No.17/1998-99. From the said documents, it is
apparent that the appeal filed by the grand-mother of the
plaintiff/appellant is allowed and the names of the grand
mother of the appellant Masoom Bee and her three
daughters Akhila, Mahemooda Bee and Sameeda Bee are
ordered to be entered in the property records pertaining to
Sy.No.200/E measuring 04 acres 30 guntas in Bhalki
Village.