SRI. MOHAMMED YACOOB vs S. BASHA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57874
WP No. 6029 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010388192019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 6029 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. MOHAMMED YACOOB
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
S/O LATE ABDUL SHUKOOR
NO 1, 'K' NO. 3 STREET
MARKHAM ROAD, ASHOKNAGAR
BANGALORE - 25
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MUSHTAQ AHMED, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. S. BASHA
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S
1(A). SMT. NOOR JAN
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
W/O LATE S. BASHA
1(B). MOIN PASHA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
S/O LATE S. BASHA
1(C). NADEEM PASHA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
S/O LATE S. BASHA
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57874
WP No. 6029 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010388192019
ALL RESIDING AT NO 1,
'K' NO. 3 STREET, MARKHAM ROAD,
ASHOKNAGAR, BANGALORE - 25.
2. MOHAMMED ISMAIL
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
S/O LATE ABDUL SHUKOOR
C/O GHOUSE FLOOR MILLS,
PULAIAH PALYA, 1ST BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 069.
3. SMT. RUQUIA BI
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
RESIDING AT MUNIGONDA GARDENS
BEHIND SAPTA ENGLISH SCHOOL
NEELSANDRA, BANGALORE - 560 047.
4. SMT. ZOHRA BI
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 272,
VINOBA NAGAR,
BEHIND K.G. HALLI POLICE STATION ,
BANGALORE - 560 045.
5. SMT. PYARI BI
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR'S
5(A).
RASHEEDA BI
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
5(B).
SHAKEEL BI
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
5(C). SIRAJ AHMED
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57874
WP No. 6029 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010388192019
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
ALL RESIDING AT NO. 9,
MARKHAM ROAD, 6TH CROSS,
ASHOKNAGAR, BANGALORE.
6. SMT. SALEEMA BI
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
D/O LATE ABDUL SHUKOOR
RESIDING AT NO. 272, VINOBA NAGAR,
BEHIND K.G. HALLI POLICE STATION
BANGALORE - 560 045.
7. SRI. MOHAMMED GHOUSE
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
7(A). SMT. FAIROZA BEGUM
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
W/O LATE MOHAMMED GHOUSE
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR'S
7(A)1. FAHAD
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
S/O LATE FAIROZA BEGUM
7(A)2. TABREZ,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
S/O LATE FAIROZA BEGUM,
RESIDING AT NO. 9
K NO. 1ST STREET
MARKHAM ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 025.
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57874
WP No. 6029 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010388192019
7(B). MOHAMMED SAUD
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
S/O LATE MOHAMMED GHOUSE
RESIDING AT NO. 9
6TH ROSS, MARKHAM ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 025.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MOHAMED SAIFULLA KHAN, ADVOCATE FOR
R7(A)(1 AND 2);
VIDE ORDER DATED 16.12.2021, NOTICE TO R2, R3, R4,
R5(A TO C), R6 ARE WAIVED)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASDE THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 12.12.2018 REJECTING THE
APPLICATION AN MEMO FILED BY THE APPELLANT AND A)
DIRECT THE COURT BELOW TO PASS A FINAL DECREE IN THE
INEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
Captioned writ petition is filed assailing the order passed
by the Court conducting the final decree proceedings (for short,
‘the FDP Court’), whereby the application filed by the petitioner
under Sections 152 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57874
WP No. 6029 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010388192019
1908 (for short, ‘the CPC’), seeking correction of the final
decree, has been rejected vide Annexure-J.
2. The FDP Court has declined to entertain the application
on the ground that the corrections sought by the petitioner do
not pertain to mere arithmetical or typographical errors
warranting rectification under Section 152 of the CPC. The FDP
Court has also taken note of the fact that an earlier application
filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC
seeking amendment has been dismissed. It has further
observed that the final decree has been drawn in terms of the
preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.10776/1993.
3. A perusal of the corrections sought by the petitioner,
as extracted in the impugned order, indicates that the
petitioner is seeking substantial alterations to the final decree,
particularly with regard to the boundaries and extents of the
properties allotted. The grievance of the petitioner, in
substance, is that the final decree has not been drawn in
conformity with the sketch furnished by the Court
Commissioner. Such a grievance cannot be adjudicated under
the guise of seeking correction of the final decree under Section
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57874
WP No. 6029 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010388192019
152 of the CPC, which is confined to the correction of clerical or
arithmetical mistakes and errors arising therein from accidental
slips or omissions.
4. Once the final decree has been drawn and the
proceedings have culminated in the acceptance of the feasibility
report, any substantive grievance regarding the correctness of
the allotments, boundaries or extents reflected in the final
decree must be agitated by challenging the final decree in the
manner known to law. The petitioner cannot seek substantive
modifications to the final decree by invoking Sections 152 and
151 of the CPC, particularly when the corrections sought, go
beyond the permissible scope of rectification of clerical or
arithmetical errors. The FDP Court was, therefore, justified in
declining to entertain the application.
5. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that if
the petitioner is aggrieved by the manner in which the final
decree has been drawn, the appropriate remedy is to challenge
the final decree passed in FDP.No.15017/2004 by availing the
remedy of appeal under Section 96 of the CPC, subject to the
applicable provisions of law. The petitioner cannot be permitted
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57874
WP No. 6029 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010388192019
to circumvent the statutory remedy of appeal by seeking
substantive alterations to the final decree under the guise of
correction.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of ,
reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the final decree
in FDP.No.15017/2004 by availing the appropriate remedy in
accordance with law. If such an appeal is filed within four
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the
petitioner shall be entitled to seek exclusion of the time spent
in prosecuting the present proceedings before this Court, in
accordance with Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The
question of applicability of Section 14 and the consequential
benefit shall be considered by the appellate Court in accordance
with law.
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
HDK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17