KAUSER BANU vs MRS. SALMA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61150-DB
WA No. 2172 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010648152026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 4 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 2172 OF 2026 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. KAUSER BANU
W/O MAHAMMAD KHASIM
SHARIFF URUF AYUB
D/O LATE A.C. MAHABOOB
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.41/3
ANCHEPALYA, KUMNBALGODU POST
KENGERI HOBLI
BENGALURU – 560 060
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
TH
#32/A, 6 MAIN ROAD
NEAR ROBIN THEATER
KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN
BENGALURU – 560 060
…APPELLANT
Digitally
signed by
VEERENDRA
KUMAR K M
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
(BY SRI SRINIVAS S.V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MRS. SALMA
W/O MAHABOOB PASHA
D/O LATE A.C. MAHABOOB
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.32
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61150-DB
WA No. 2172 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010648152026
DODDABALLAPUR
ISLAMPUR ROAD
DARGA JOGAHALLI
NEAR RAGI MILL
BENGALURU RURAL – 561 235
2. MR. GHOUSE PASHA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.44
ANCHEPALYA, KUMBALGODU POST
KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE – 560 060
…RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 03.06.2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN W.P.NO.12004/2026 (GM-RES) DISMISSING THE SAID
PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
08.03.2025 PASSED BY LOK ADALAT AT BENGALURU (CCH-83)
(ANNEXURE-B IN W.P.) IN EX.NO.25482/2023, ACCEPTING THE
JOINT MEMO FILED BY THE PARTIES AND ORDERING
COMPLIANCE ON THE TERMS OF THE JOINT MEMO TO BE
REPORTED (ANNEXURE-A IN W.P.NO.12004/2026) AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61150-DB
WA No. 2172 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010648152026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an
order dated 03.06.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ
Petition No.12004/2026 (GM-RES).
2. The appellant had filed the said petition impugning an order
dated 08.03.2025 passed in Lok Adalat in Ex.No.25482/2023. The
learned Lok Adalat had accepted the joint memo filed by the parties
to the said Execution proceedings and passed the order dated
08.03.2025.
3. It is the appellant’s case that the said joint memo (Lok
Adalat’s Award) is contrary to the terms of the decree passed in
O.S.No.25795/2015, which is the subject matter of Execution
No.25482/2023. The appellant also claims that she did not
understand the joint memo as it was in English. The learned Single
Judge rejected this contention, finding that the appellant signed the
joint memo in English. Therefore the claim that she did not
understand English could not be accepted.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61150-DB
WA No. 2172 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010648152026
4. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the appellant and
respondent No.1 had filed a suit (O.S.No.25795/2015). The
appellant was plaintiff No.1 (arrayed as JD-1 in Ex.No.25482/2023)
and respondent No.1 was plaintiff No.2 (arrayed as JD-2 in the
execution proceedings). In the suit proceedings, plaintiff No.2 was
JD-1
represented by the appellant ( ) as her constituted attorney.
5. One Smt. Haseena, who was arrayed as defendant No.1 had
expired during the pendency of the suit and the remaining parties
were accepted as her legal representatives. Respondent No.2 is
was defendant No.2 in the said suit and had instituted the as
execution proceedings as the Decree Holder ( DH ).
6. The dispute in the suit related to three properties referred to
as item No.1, item No.2, and item No.3. This was disposed of by an
award dated 07.04.2022 passed before the Lok Adalat in terms of a
compromise petition filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 [ CPC ].
7. It was agreed that item No.1 of the suit property would be in
transferred in favour of the appellant (arrayed as plaintiff No.1). It
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61150-DB
WA No. 2172 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010648152026
was also agreed that item No.3 would fall to the share of
respondent No.2 (DH in the execution proceedings). Regarding
item No.2, it was agreed that the appellant and respondent No.1
(the plaintiffs in the suit and JD1 and JD2) would either retain the
property or sell it. In the event they sell the property, they were
required to pay 30% of the sale proceeds to defendant No.2(DH).
However, in the event they decided to retain the same, they would
₹
pay an amount of 17,25,000/- to DH. Additionally, the parties had
₹
agreed that there was an outstanding debt of 9,00,000/- out of
which the plaintiffs (appellant and respondent No.1) agreed to pay
₹
50%, that is, 4,50,000/- and the balance 50% would be paid by
defendant No.2 (respondent No.2)
8. It is apparent that a dispute regarding the enforcement of the
said decree had arisen, and an execution petition
(Ex.No.25482/2023) was filed in O.S.No.25795/2015. The said
execution petition was referred to the Lok Adalat. Before the Lok
Adalat, the parties filed a joint memo, by which respondent No.1
₹ ₹
(JD-2) issued two cheques for 4,00,000/- and 5,00,000/-,
respectively, in favour of respondent No.2 (DH). It was agreed that
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61150-DB
WA No. 2172 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010648152026
₹
the remaining balance of 1,87,750/- would be paid by respondent
No.1 (JD-2) at the time of execution of the release deed.
Respondent No.2 (DH) agreed to hand over the vacant possession
of item No.2 of the scheduled property to JD-2 within ten days of
the encashment of the said cheques. Additionally, the appellant
and respondent No.1 (JD-1 & JD-2) and respondent No.2 (DH)
agreed to execute a registered release deed in respect of item
No.2 of the scheduled property in favour of JD-2.
9. According to the appellant, the aforesaid arrangement is
contrary to the terms of the decree and the award and therefore,
passing an order in terms of the joint memo was beyond the
jurisdiction of the Executing Court. We find little merit in the said
contention. As noted above, the award provided an option for the
plaintiffs, that is, the appellant and respondent No.1 (JD-1 and
JD-2) either to sell the property in question, that is, item No.2 of the
scheduled property or to retain the same. In the event they retained
₹
the same, they were required to pay a sum of 17,25,000/- to
Respondent No.2 (DH). The decree did not contemplate any
difference of opinion between the plaintiffs, that is, the appellant
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61150-DB
WA No. 2172 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010648152026
and respondent No.1. However, it appears from the joint memo that
the plaintiffs had decided to retain the said property. Thus, the
₹
decree holder would be entitled to 17,25,000/-. The appellant
claimed that she paid her share and respondent No.2 (JD-2) had
also agreed to pay certain amounts to DH to secure the release
deed in respect of the property in question.
10. The joint memo is regarding enforcement of the decree
holder's claim for the monetary amount for release of the subject
property. Thus, the terms of the joint memo, clearly fall within the
jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat in the execution proceedings.
11. Under the joint memo, the parties also agreed that
respondent No.2 shall release the property in favour of JD-2, that
is, one of the plaintiffs (plaintiff No.2) in the suit. The joint memo
has been admittedly signed by all the parties. We find no error in
the impugned order holding the appellant to be bound by the joint
memo, which was concededly signed by her.
12. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61150-DB
WA No. 2172 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010648152026
13. The pending applications are also disposed of.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(K.S. HEMALEKHA)
JUDGE
KMV
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8