SAIRA BANU vs ABDUL SHALAM
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11695
WP No. 203242 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030121602025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
TH
DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO. 203242 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SAIRA BANU
W/O LATE MOHAMMED FAROOQ @ NOORUDDIN,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. H. NO. 1-9-56, AZAD NAGAR, RAICHUR.
2. ALIYA BEGUM
D/O LATE MOHAMMED FAROOQ @ NOORUDDIN,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. H. NO. 1-9-56, AZAD NAGAR, RAICHUR.
3. MUMTAZ BEGUM W/O SOFISAB,
AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. H. NO. 5-4-55. NETAJI NAGAR, RAICHUR.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHIVANAND PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ABDUL SHALAM S/O OSMANSAB,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. H. NO. 6-123, KHARI BOWLI,
MOMINPURA AREA, KALABURAGI- 585201.
2. MD ALTAF HUSSAIN
S/O LATE MOHAMMED FAROOQ @ NOORUDDIN,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
Digitally signed
by B NAGAVENI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11695
WP No. 203242 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030121602025
R/O. H. NO. 1-9-56, AZAD NAGAR,
RAICHUR- 584101.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVI B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 IS SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
A) A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY
OTHER ORDER OF THE KIND AND
SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 25.07.2025 IN M.A NO.
01/2024 OF THE PRL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
RAICHUR AS PER ANNEXURE-E
AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 29.01.2024 ON I.A NO. 1 IN
OS NO.245/2023 OF THE IIIRD
ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC AT RAICHUR AS PER
ANNEXURE-C TO THE WRIT
PETITION.
B) ANY OTHER ORDER IN THE FACTS
AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE MAY ALSO BE PASSED.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11695
WP No. 203242 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030121602025
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition
challenging the order dated 25.07.2025 passed in
M.A. No.1 of 2024 by the learned Principal District
and Sessions Judge, Raichur (for short, ‘ the First
Appellate Court ’) and order dated 29.01.2024
passed on I.A. No.1 in O.S. No.245 of 2023 by the
learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
Raichur (for short, ‘ the Trial Court ’).
2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ
petition are as follows:
3. Parties are referred to based on their ranking before
the Trial Court: petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are defendant
Nos.1, 2 and 4; respondent No.1 is the plaintiff and
respondent No.2 is defendant No.3.
4. The plaintiff filed a suit for partition and separate
possession contending that the suit schedule
properties are Matruka properties of the parties to
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11695
WP No. 203242 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030121602025
the suit. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff filed an
application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“ CPC ”) seeking an
order of temporary injunction restraining the
defendants from alienating the suit schedule
properties.
5. The Trial Court, after hearing both sides, partly
allowed the application and thereby restrained
defendant No.4 from alienating suit schedule item
No.3 only.
6. It is contended that the plaintiff is a separate
member of the family and had received suit Item
No.3 property and thereafter, by receiving a sum of
Rs.5,80,000/-, created an irrevocable interest in
favour of defendant No.1 by executing a General
Power of Attorney and on the basis of said GPA, the
said property was sold in favour of defendant No.4
by defendant No.1. Defendant No.4 after purchasing
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11695
WP No. 203242 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030121602025
the said property got the said Item No.3 converted
into non-agriculture and got the layout approved.
7. The said application was opposed by defendant Nos.1
to 3 by filing objections.
8. The Trial Court, after hearing the learned counsel for
the parties, allowed the application and restrained
defendant No.4 from alienating or creating,
mortgaging the suit property bearing Survey
No.1437/*/2 measuring 03 acres 22 guntas.
9. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 aggrieved by the order passed
on I.A. No.1 filed an appeal in M.A. No.1 of 2024 on
the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions
Judge, Raichur.
10. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned
counsel for the parties and appreciating the material
on record, dismissed the appeal vide order dated
25.07.2025.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11695
WP No. 203242 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030121602025
11. Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4, aggrieved by the order
passed on I.A. No.1 by the Trial Court and the order
passed by the First Appellate Court in M.A. No.1 of
2024, have filed this writ petition.
12. Heard Sri.Shivanand Patil, learned counsel for
defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4, and Sri.Ravi B. Patil,
learned counsel for the plaintiff.
13. Notice was issued to defendant No.3. Despite service
of notice, he remained unrepresented.
14. Learned counsel for defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4
submits that defendant No.4 had purchased the
property under a registered sale deed and got it
converted into non-agriculture and formed a Layout.
If an order of injunction is granted against defendant
No.4, defendant Nos.1 to 3 will be put to irreparable
loss and will be involved in multiplicity of litigation.
He submits that defendant No.4 may be permitted to
rd
sell 2/3 share in Item No.3 of the suit schedule
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11695
WP No. 203242 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030121602025
property. He submits that the plaintiff is entitled for
rd
1/3 share and defendant Nos.1 to 3 are ready to
rd
leave 1/3 share. Hence, on these grounds, he prays
to allow the writ petition.
15. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits
that the plaintiff filed a suit for partition and separate
possession. He submits that the suit schedule
properties are Matruka properties of the parties to
the suit and defendant No.4 has no right to sell the
suit schedule property insofar as Item No.3 is
concerned. He submits that if defendant No.4
alienates the property, the plaintiff will be involved in
the multiplicity of litigation. He submits that both the
Courts below have concurrently recorded a finding
and rightly passed the impugned orders. Hence, on
these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.
16. Perused the records and considered the submissions
of the learned counsel for the parties.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11695
WP No. 203242 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030121602025
17. It is an undisputed fact that the plaintiff filed a suit
for partition and separate possession of Maturka
properties, claiming his share. Defendant No.4 had
purchased the property under a registered sale deed
and got converted the said Item No.3 land into non-
agriculture and formed a layout.
18. If defendant No.4 is permitted to sell the sites
formed in Item No.3, the plaintiff will not be in a
position to execute the decree to be passed in the
suit for partition and separate possession. In order to
avoid the multiplicity of litigation, both the Courts
below have rightly passed the impugned order.
19. Further, the scope of judicial interference under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited in
view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Radhey Shyam and Another Vs.
1
Chhabi Nath and Others . Considering the
1
(2015) 5 SCC 423
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11695
WP No. 203242 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030121602025
proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court, both the Courts below were justified in
passing the impugned orders. Hence, I do not find
any error in the impugned orders, as such, I decline
to interfere with the impugned orders.
20. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass
the following:
ORDER
i. The writ petition is dismissed ;
ii. Pending IA(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
RK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11
CT:PK