FATIMA KHATOON vs GOUSIA BEGUM DIED BY HER LRS 1) GULAM FAREED AND ORS
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10584
WP No. 203845 of 2024
CNR: KAHC030126072024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
TH
DATED THIS THE 30 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO. 203845 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
FATIMA KHATOON
W/O AMEER MOHAMMED KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. RAWAHALGALLI, BIDAR-585 401.
…PETITIONER
(BY SMT. VEERANI V. NANDI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. RAVI B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
GOUSIA BEGUM
W/O NAWABMIYAN
D/O LATE AHMED SHAFI KHAN,
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR’S,
GULAM FAREED S/O NAWABMIYAN,
AGED ABOUT YEARS, OCC: LABOUR,
R/O. H.NO.6-2-188,
NEAR TAKHAT KIRMANI,
MANIYAR TALEEM,
BIDAR-585401.
2. ALIYA BEGUM D/O NAWABMIYAN,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. H.NO.6-2-188, NEAR TAKHAT KIRMANI,
MANIYAR TALEEM, BIDAR-585401.
Digitally signed
by VARSHA N
RASALKAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10584
WP No. 203845 of 2024
CNR: KAHC030126072024
3. NAZIA BEGUM D/O NAWABMIYAN,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O H.NO.6-2-188, NEAR TAKHAT KIRMANI,
MANIYAR TALEEM, BIDAR-585401.
4. PASHA BEGUM D/O NAWABMIYAN,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. H.NO.6-2-188,
NEAR TAKHAT KIRMANI,
MANIYAR TALEEM, BIDAR-585401.
5. ZAREENA BEGUM D/O NAWABMIYAN,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. H.NO.6-2-188,
NEAR TAKHAT KIRMANI,
MANIYAR TALEEM,
BIDAR-585401.
6.
RASHEEDA BEGUM W/O MAQSOOD MIYAN
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR’S
SHAIK MAQSOODMIYAN
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS,
SABA YASMEEN W/O SHAIK AJAZ,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD AND COOLIE,
R/O H.NO.6-2-188, NEAR TAKHAT KIRMANI,
MANIYAR TALEEM, BIDAR-585401.
7. MASTER SHAIK AZHAR
S/O LATE SHAIK AJAZ,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O H.NO.6-2-188, NEAR TAKHAT KIRMANI,
MANIYAR TALEEM,
BIDAR-585401.
8. MASTER SHAIK IRFAN
S/O SHAIK AJAZ,
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10584
WP No. 203845 of 2024
CNR: KAHC030126072024
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. H.NO.6-2-188, NEAR TAKHAT KIRMANI,
MANIYAR TALEEM,
BIDAR-585401.
9. SHAIK ILIYAS
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. H.NO.6-2-188, NEAR TAKHAT KIRMANI,
MANIYAR TALEEM, BIDAR-585401.
10. WAHID BEGUM W/O MD. KALEEM KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. H.NO.6-2-188, NEAR TAKHAT KIRMANI,
MANIYAR TALEEM,
BIDAR-585401.
11. FIRDOS BEGUM W/O ABU BAKER,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. H.NO.6-2-188, NEAR TAKHAT KIRMANI,
MANIYAR TALEEM, BIDAR-585401.
12. NOORIN BEGUM
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. H.NO.6-2-188, NEAR TAKHAT KIRMANI,
MANIYAR TALEEM, BIDAR-585401.
13. NILOFAR BEGUM
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. H.NO.6-2-188, NEAR TAKHAT KIRMANI,
MANIYAR TALEEM, BIDAR-585401.
14. NAVEED BEGUM
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. H.NO.6-2-188, NEAR TAKHAT KIRMANI,
MANIYAR TALEEM, BIDAR-585401.
15. BEEJAN BEE W/O SHAIK ISMAIL,
AGED ABOUT YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
R/O H.NO.6-2-55,
MANIYAR TALEEM, BIDAR-585401.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10584
WP No. 203845 of 2024
CNR: KAHC030126072024
16. RAFI AHMED KHAN
S/O NAZEER AHMED KHAN,
AGED 50 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. SERVANT
R/O H.NO.6-2-55,
MANIYAR TALEEM,
BIDAR-585401.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A) A WRIT
OF CERTIORARI ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.11.2024 DISMISSING THE
APPLICATION FILED IN I.A NO.4 UNDER THE PROVISION OF
PARTITION ACT IN FDP NO.4/2009 AS AT ANNEXURE-F
PASSED BY THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC AT BIDAR AND CONSEQUENTLY TO ALLOW THE
APPLICATION AS PRAYED FOR. B) PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER/S
AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10584
WP No. 203845 of 2024
CNR: KAHC030126072024
ORAL ORDER
1. Petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the order
dated 16.11.2024 passed on I.A.No.4 in FDP No.4 of
2009 filed seeking permission to purchase the
property. The Trial Court vide order dated
16.11.2024 rejected the said application. Hence, this
writ petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
First Appellate Court has granted liberty to the
parties to file an application for purchasing the
shares of other co-parceners. Pursuant to the liberty
granted by the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.16 of
2018, the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.4.
The impugned order passed by the trial Court is
contrary to the observation made by the First
Appellate Court in R.A.No.16 of 2018. Hence, on
these grounds, she prays to allow the writ petition.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10584
WP No. 203845 of 2024
CNR: KAHC030126072024
4. Perused the records and considered the submissions
of learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. The petitioner filed a suit for partition and separate
possession in O.S.No.149 of 2001. The said suit
came to be decreed by judgment and preliminary
decree dated 25.04.2009. Deceased respondent No.1
challenged the judgment and preliminary decree
passed in O.S.No.149 of 2001 in R.A.No.72 of 2009.
The said appeal came to be dismissed by judgment
dated 21.07.2011. The petitioner filed FDP No.4 of
2009 wherein the petitioner filed an application
under Section 2 of the Partition Act for purchasing
the shares of other co-parceners, in terms of the
alleged liberty granted by the First Appellate Court in
R.A.No.16 of 2018.
6. I have perused the copy of the judgment passed in
R.A.No.16 of 2018, wherein the First Appellate Court
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10584
WP No. 203845 of 2024
CNR: KAHC030126072024
has passed the following order in the operative
portion, which reads as follows:
“ORDER
i. Regular Appeal under Order 41 Rule 1 R/w
Sec.96 CPC filed by the appellants is hereby
allowed.
ii. The decree under appeal passed by the
Additional Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Bidar,
passed in FDP No.4/2009 dated 06.02.2018 is
hereby set aside, as well as the matter is
remanded back to the trial Court with a
direction to fix the market value of the suit
schedule properties by appointing expert Court
Commissioner as observed in the body of the
judgment and to put the suit properties into
auction for sale as well as distribute the
proceeds between share holders.
iii. No order as to costs.
iv. Draw decree accordingly.
V. Send a copy of this judgment to the Additional
Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Court, Bidar, along
with records.”
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10584
WP No. 203845 of 2024
CNR: KAHC030126072024
7. On perusal, it is seen that the First Appellate Court
has passed an order to put the suit property into
auction for sale as well as to distribute the sale
proceeds between the shareholders. The First
Appellate Court has not reserved any liberty to the
parties to make application for purchasing the shares
of other stakeholders. The FDP Court has rightly
recorded its finding in paragraph No.3 of the
impugned order, which reads as follows:
“3. On meaningful understanding of the
application it reflects that, she is seeking an
order for allowing her to purchase property
directly. At this juncture, it is necessary to
refer judgment passed by Hon'ble Prl. District
and Sessions Court, Bidar in R.A.No.16/2018.
In the said judgment, there is a specific order
directing to put the suit properties into auction
for sale as well as to distribute the proceeds
between the share holders. Therefore, this
Court has to comply the order of the Hon'ble
Prl. District and Sessions Court, Bidar. As
noticed above, what petitioners seeking is to
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10584
WP No. 203845 of 2024
CNR: KAHC030126072024
permit her to purchase the property without
conducting auction. Such relief cannot be
granted by this Court as it is impermissible in
view of judgment passed in R.A.No.16/2018.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
I.A.No.4 filed by the petitioners is
hereby rejected.
For hearing call on 25.11.2024.”
8. Therefore, the FDP Court has rightly passed the
impugned order. Hence, I do not find any error and
therefore, decline to interfere with the impugned
order. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
dismissed.
i. The writ petition is
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
VNR
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6
Ct:pk