ABDUL RAHAMAN NSARULLAH S/O LATE NASRULLA A SIRSIKER vs ANISA R SHAIKH W/O RIYAZ SHAIKH

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16869
WP No. 107371 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020159322026



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT DHARWAD

TH
DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

WRIT PETITION NO.107371 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

ABDUL RAHAMAN NSARULLAH
S/O LATE NASRULLA A. SIRSIKER,
AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. MUSLIM GALI, SIRSI, TALUK SIRSI,
DISTRICT. UTTARA KANNADA-581402,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 602,
AI SABAH BUILDING AI MAHATTA,
AI QASIMIA, SHARJAH U.A.E

REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER
SRI. QAMAR MULLAR
S/O MOHAMMAD ISHAQ MULLA,
AGE. 58 YEARS,
R/O. PLOT NO. 43, R.S. NO.48/1A/1,
SHAHU NAGAR, KANGRALI BK,
BELAGAVI 590010.


















Digitally
signed by
SAROJA
HANGARAKI
Location:
high court of
karnataka,
dharwad
bench
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAMACHANDRA V. BHAT, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. ANISA R. SHAIKH W/O RIYAZ SHAIKH
AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. MUSLIM GALLI, SIRSI, TALUK SIRSI,
DISTRICT UTTARA KANNADA 581402.
REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER,
HINA AFROZ KHAN
W/O MOHAMMAD YUSUF KHAN,
AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. H.NO. MIG-II/2, GANESH NAGAR,
POST. DANDELI, AMBEWADI,

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16869
WP No. 107371 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020159322026


HALIYAL, DANDELI 581325,
DISTRICT UTTARA KANNADA.

2. HINA AFROZ KHAN
W/O MOHAMMAD YUSUF KHAN
AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. H.NO. MIG-II/2, GANESH NAGAR,
POST. DANDELI, AMBEWADI,
HALIYAL, DANDELI 581325,
DISTRICT UTTARA KANNADA.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY MISS VIDYASHRI M. MULIMANI, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 14.08.2026 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE, SIRSI,
IN O.S. NO.403/2025, VIDE ANNEXURE-K, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

THIS WP COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

ORAL ORDER


1. Petitioner is a plaintiff in O.S.No.403/2025 which was filed
by him for relief of partition and separate possession
against his sisters, defendant Nos.1 and 2/respondent No.1
and 2 herein.

2. Originally the suit was filed only in respect of property
bearing CTS No.1260C. Later by way of amendment
parties have included property bearing CTS No.1260B1.
Later the plaintiff and the defendants filed a petition under

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16869
WP No. 107371 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020159322026


Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC seeking resolving the matter
amicably. Plaintiff/Petitioner and defendant
No.1/respondent No.1 are stated to be residing abroad, the
plaintiff/petitioner has authorized his co-brother i.e.,
husband of sister of his wife namely Mr.Qamar Mulla as his
General Power Of Attorney to represent him in the
aforesaid suit for the purpose of entering into compromise
and to carry out incidental deeds and activities. While
defendant No.1 has authorized defendant No.2 her sister
by executing General Power Of Attorney for the same
purpose.

3. By impugned order dated 14.08.2026, the Trial Court has
rejected the compromise solely on the premise that the
parties have not given the details of the ownership under
which they are claiming their share in the property and
that they are only relying upon the revenue entries in the
revenue records, which are not the proof of their title.
Therefore, the compromise could not be entered into. Only
on this count, the Trial Court has rejected the compromise.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16869
WP No. 107371 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020159322026



4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter
was resolved during the mediation process and as such the
Trial Court could not have rejected the compromise
petition. He relies upon the judgment of the Orissa High
Court in the case of Charulata Beura and Another V.
Ranjana Pradhan and Others reported in 2025 SCC
OnLine Ori 3902 .

5. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the
compromise having been entered into between the parties
and indeed supports the case of the petitioner.

6. Heard and perused the records.

7. Suit is for partition and separate possession of immovable
property namely City Survey No.1260C measuring 154 4/9
Sq.Yards, situated in Sirsi Town.

8. The parties have relied upon the Extract from the Property
Register Card which are maintained in the office of the
Department of Survey and Land Records in support of their
claim over the aforesaid property.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16869
WP No. 107371 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020159322026



9. Learned counsel for the petitioner produced copies of the
said records which indicate property in Sy.No.1260C is
standing in the name of one Najamunnisa wife of Nasarulla
who is stated to be the mother of the parties ever since
19.11.1987. Similarly property bearing CTS No.1260B1 is
standing in the name of Nasarulla son of Abdul Rehman
from the year 1982.

10. The Trial Court has taken note of the fact that defendant
No.1 had executed General Power of Attorney in respect of
only one item of the suit property and that the parties had
produced only Extract from the Property Register Card
issued by the Department of Survey and Land Records and
hand sketch map of the suit property.

11. The Trial Court has opined that the said documents are
only revenue documents for the purpose of collecting the
revenue and they are not the title documents. As such, the
Trial Court has concluded that the parties are barred from
entering into compromise.

12. Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC reads as under:

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16869
WP No. 107371 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020159322026


“Compromise of suit.- (1) Where it is proved to
the satisfaction of the Court that a suit has been
adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement
or compromise in writing and signed by the parties
or where the defendant satisfied the plaintiff in
respect of the whole or any part of the subject-
matter of the suit, the Court shall order such
agreement, compromise satisfaction to be recorded,
and shall pass a decree in accordance therewith so
far as it relates to the parties to the suit, whether
or not the subject-matter of the agreement,
compromise or satisfaction is the same as the
subject-matter of the suit:

Provided that where it is alleged by one party and
denied by the other that an adjustment or
satisfaction has been arrived at, the Court shall
decide the question; but no adjournment shall be
granted for the purpose of deciding the question,
unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, thinks
fit to grant such adjournment.”


13. The Trial Court before whom an application for compromise
is filed, is required to examine and ensure that the terms
of the compromise are not being illegal or opposed to
public policy. There is no scope for Trial Court to reject the
compromise on the premise of parties relying only upon
the revenue records and not the title deeds.

14. It is equally well settled that in terms of Section 133 of the
Land Revenue Act, the entries in the revenue records
carries the presumption of same being true unless the
same are rebutted by substituting equally and contrary

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16869
WP No. 107371 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020159322026


evidence in that regard. Section 133 of the Land Revenue
Act, 1964 reads as under:
“133. Presumption regarding entries in the
records. —An entry in the Record of Rights and a
certified entry in the Register of Mutations or in a Patta
Book shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is
proved or a new entry is lawfully substituted therefor.”

15. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Smt.Jayamma Venkatram and Another V. Smt.Ashraf
Jahan Begum and Another reported in 2020 (3) KCCR
1966 , at paragraph No.22 has held that ;
“whenever a person has been in possession of an
immovable property, especially ancestral in
character, for quite a long time, and revenue
entries stand in the lineage of his family
continuously without any challenge to it, or if
challenged, the same being overruled or rejected;
and being not in a position to produce any
document conferring title other than revenue
records, there is no impediment to declare title
based on possession which is otherwise called
possessory title.”

16. In any event, it was not open to the Trial Court to have
assumed the issue as to whether or not the petitioners are
the owners of the property in the absence of any counter
claim or objection from anyone whomsoever. It is not the
case that the revenue records furnished by the parties

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16869
WP No. 107371 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020159322026


indicate any such dispute being entered into in the revenue
records either. The Trial Court therefore ought not to have
rejected the application. Accordingly following:
ORDER

(i) The petition is allowed.

(ii) The impugned order dated 14.08.2026
passed by the III Additional Civil Judge,
Sirsi, in O.S.No.403/2025 produced at
Annexure-K is quashed.

(iii) Matter is remitted to the Trial Court to
proceed further completing the formalities
by accepting the compromise filed by the
parties.

Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL)
JUDGE
EM
CT:VP
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 14