MRS NIGAR vs MR SHAFI AHMED
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60928
RFA No. 815 of 2018
C/W RFA No. 204 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010152432018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ND
DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 815 OF 2018 (PAR/POS)
C/W
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 204 OF 2017 (PAR)
IN RFA NO. 815/2018
BETWEEN:
SMT. NOOR JAHAN BEGUM
W/O. LATE AEJAZ AHMED
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT NO.2, B STREET
OLD KORACHARA PALYA
MIR OBIDULLA ROAD CROSS
SHIVAJINAGARA, BENGALURU-560 051.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI.JANARDHANA G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. GULAB JAN
W/O. LATE SHAFI AHMED
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
2. SRI. SHOWKATH ALI
S/O. LATE SHAFI AHMED
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
3. SMT. NAZIMA TAJ
W/O. SARDAR
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60928
RFA No. 815 of 2018
C/W RFA No. 204 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010152432018
D/O. LATE SHAFI AHMED
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
4. SRI. SADATH
S/O. LATE SHAFI AHMED
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
5. SMT. ANEESA TAJ
W/O. SALEEM @ SALLU
D/O. LATE SHAFI AHMED
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R1 TO R5 ARE R/AT NO.1/A
TH
12 STREET, BROADWAY ROAD CROSS
PENSION MOHALLA
SHIVAJINAGARA
BENGALURU-560 051.
6. SRI. NISAR AHMED
S/O. LATE SYED AHMED
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
TH
R/AT NO.1/A, 12 STREET
BROADWAY ROAD CROSS
PENSION MOHALLA, SHIVAJINAGARA
BENGALURU-560 051.
7. SMT. YASMEEN TAJ
W/O. LATE SYED IMTIYAZ AHMED
@ SYED GAFFAR
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT NO.6/9, THIMMAIAH ROAD
SHIVAJINAGARA, BENGALURU-560 051.
ST
PRESENTLY R/AT 1 CIRCLE
DARGAH MOHALLA, SULEBELE
HOSKOTE, BENGALURU NORTH
BENGALURU RURAL-562129.
8. SRI. SYED NAYAZ AHMED
S/O. LATE SYED IMTIYAZ AHMED
@ SYED GAFFAR
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60928
RFA No. 815 of 2018
C/W RFA No. 204 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010152432018
R/AT NO.298, MEDIMALASANDRA
ANUGUNDANAHALLI
BENGALURU RURAL-560 067.
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
8(A) SMT SHABREEN TAJ
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/AT NO.298, MEDIMALASANDRA
ANUGUNDANAHALLI
BENGALURU RURAL-5600067.
9. SRI. SYED AYYAZ AHMED
S/O. LATE SYED IMTIYAZ AHMED
@ SYED GAFFAR
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/AT NO. 6/9. THIMMAIAH ROAD
SHIVAJINAGARA, BENGALURU-560 051.
10. SRI. SHAHJHAN BEGUM
D/O. LATE SYED AHMED
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT NO. 2, E-NO. 77TH STREET
H.K.P. ROAD, BROADWAY ROAD
SHIVAJINAGARA, BENGALURU-560 051.
11. SMT. NIGAR @ NIGARJAAN
W/O. NASARULLA
D/O. LATE SYED AHMED
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
TH
R/AT NO.22, E. NO.77 STREET
H.K.P. ROAD, BROADWAY ROAD
SHIVAJINAGARA, BENGALURU-560 051.
PRESENTLY R/AT NO. 324
MAHAMAD DAS SAB PAIYA ( M S PALYA)
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU-560097.
12. SMT. TABASSUM
W/O. AIJAZ AHMED
D/O. LATE SYED AHMED
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60928
RFA No. 815 of 2018
C/W RFA No. 204 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010152432018
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
ND
R/AT NO.22, 2 FLOOR
TH
E-NO. 77 STREET, H.K.P. ROAD,
BORADWAY ROAD, SHIVAJINAGARA
BENGALURU-560 051.
PRESENTLY R/AT NO. 10 "C"
NOHA STREET, SHIVAJINAGARA
BENGALURU-560 051.
13. SMT. SHAHU BEGUM
W/O. CHOTU SAHEB
D/O. LATE SYED AHMED
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
TH
R/AT NO.22 E-NO-77 STREET
H.K.P ROAD, BROADWAY ROAD
SHIVAJINAGARA, BENGALURU-560 051.
14. SMT. SALMA BEGUM
D/O. LATE SYED AHMED
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
TH
R/AT NO. 22 E-NO-77 STREET
H.K.P ROAD, BROADWAY ROAD
SHIVAJINAGARA, BENGALURU-560 051.
PRESENTLY R/AT NO.117/118,
H.K.P. ROAD, BROADWAY ROAD
SHIVAJINAGARA, BENGALURU-560 051.
15. MR. SYED WAJID
S/O LATE SYED ANWAR
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
16. MRS. FATHIMA BEGUM
W/O SYED WAJID
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R15 AND R16 ARE RESIDING AT NO.9
TH TH
10 CROSS, 4 MAIN
VASANTHANAGARA
BENGALURU-560052
…RESPONDENTS
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60928
RFA No. 815 of 2018
C/W RFA No. 204 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010152432018
(BY SRI. ASLAM KHAN M., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5:
SRI RASHEED KHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R7, R9, R15 & R16
SRI. M A AZEEZ KHURAISHI, ADVCOATE FOR R10
R6, R8(A), R11 TO R13 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED
SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R14 IS HELD SUFFICIENT
V/O DATED: 17.03.2023
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER XLI RULE
1 AND 2 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED:27.10.2016 PASSED IN OS.NO.3909/2010 ON THE FILE OF
THE XV ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE,
PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE
POSSESSION.
IN RFA NO. 204/2017
BETWEEN:
MRS. NIGAR
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
W/O MR NASARULLA
D/O LATE SYED AHMED
ST ND
NO.333, 1 MAIN, 2 CROSS
M S PALYA, VIDYARANYAPURA POST
BENGALURU -560097.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAMESHCHANDRA.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
MR SHAFI AHMED
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
1. SMT GULAB JAN
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
W/O LATE SHAFI AHMED
2. SRI SHOWKATH ALI
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
S/O LATE SHAFI AHMED
3. SMT NAZIMA TAJ
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
D/O ALTE SHAFI AHMED
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60928
RFA No. 815 of 2018
C/W RFA No. 204 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010152432018
4. SRI SADATH
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
S/O LATE SHAFI AHMED
5. SMT ANEESA TAJ
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
D/O LATE SHAFI AHMED
W/O MR SALEEM @ SALLU
R1 TO R5 ARE R/AT NO.1/A,
TH
12 STREET, BROADWAY ROAD CROSS
PENSION MOHALLA, SHIVAJINAGAR
BENGALURU 560051.
6. MR NISAR AHMED
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
S/O LATE SYED AHMED
TH
NO.1/A, 12 STREET
BROADWAY ROAD CROSS
PENSION MOHALLA
SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560051.
MR IMTIYAZ AHMED
SINCE DEAD
7. SMT YASMEEN TAJ
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
W/O LATE SYED GAFFAR
@ SYED IMTIYAZ
8. SYED NAYAZ AHMED
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
8(A) MRS. SHAVREEN TAJ
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
W/O LATE SYED NAYAZ AHMED
NO. 298. MEDIMALASANDRA
ANUGONDANAHALLI
BENGALURU RURAL-5606067.
9. SYED AJYAZ AHMED
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
S/O LATE SYED GAFFAR
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60928
RFA No. 815 of 2018
C/W RFA No. 204 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010152432018
@ SYED IMTIYAZ
R7 TO R9 ARE RESIDING AT
NO.6/9, THIMMAIAH ROAD
SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560051.
10. MRS SHAHJAHAN BEGUM
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
D/O LATE SYED AHMED
RESIDIN/AT NO.22, E-NO.7TH
STREET, H K P ROAD, BROADWAY ROAD
SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE 560051.
11. MRS NOOR JAHAN BEGUM
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
W/O MR AIJAZ AHMED
D/O LATE SYED AHMED
ST
RESIDING AT NO.22, 1 FLOOR
E-NO.7TH STREET
H K P ROAD, BROADWAY ROAD
SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560051.
12. MRS TABSSUM
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
W/O MR AIJAZ AHMED
D/O LATE SYED AHMED
ND
R/AT NO.22, 2 FLOOR
E-NO.7TH STREET, H K P ROAD
BROADWAY ROAD, SHIVAJINAGAR
BANGALORE-560051.
13. MRS SHAHU BEGUM
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
W/O MR CHOTU SAHEB
D/O LATE SYED AHMED
TH
R/AT NO.1/A, 12 STREET
BROADWAY ROAD CROSS,
PENSIONMOHALLA, SHIVAJINAGAR
BANGALORE 560051.
14. MISS SALMA BEGUM
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
D/O LATE SYED AHMED
TH
R/AT NO.1/A, 12 STREET
BROADWAY ROAD CROSS
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60928
RFA No. 815 of 2018
C/W RFA No. 204 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010152432018
PENSIONMOHALLA
SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-51
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.ASLAM KHAN M, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5:
SRI M A AZEEZ KHURAISHI, ADVOCATE FOR R10:
R6,R7,R9,R11 TO R13 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED:
SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R14 IS HELD SUFFICIENT
V/O DATED 07.03.2023)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER XLI RULE 1
OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.10.2016
PASSED IN OS NO.3909.2010 ON THE FILE OF THE XV ADDL. CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE CITY (CH NO.3)
PARTLY DECREED THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE
POSSESSION.
THIS APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING , THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
ORAL JUDGMENT
Defendant No.1 has filed R.F.A. No.815/2018 and
defendant No.2 has filed R.F.A. No.204/2017, challenging
the judgment and decree dated 27.10.2016 passed by the
XV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru,
whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs came to be decreed
on the basis of a joint memo filed by some of the parties.
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60928
RFA No. 815 of 2018
C/W RFA No. 204 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010152432018
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.
3. The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate
possession. Upon service of summons, defendant No.1
appeared through counsel and filed the written statement,
which was adopted by the other defendants. Thereafter,
the plaintiffs and some of the defendants filed a joint
memo stating that they had amicably settled the dispute
with the intervention of well-wishers. However, the
appellants herein and their counsel have not signed the
joint memo.
4, The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Krishna
Kumar Ojha and Others v. Jitendra Chaudhary and
Others , reported in 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 652 , has held
that in the absence of the specific consent of the parties to
enter into a compromise, the suit cannot be decreed on
the basis of a joint memo. The relevant paragraphs of the
judgment are extracted below:
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60928
RFA No. 815 of 2018
C/W RFA No. 204 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010152432018
“5.5 Recently, the decision authored by J.B.
Pardiwala J., in Prasanta Kumar Sahoo v. Charulata
Sahoo, noted that almost sixty years ago the
Madras High Court had observed that express
authorisation is the norm and has to be followed:
"105. Almost six decades back, the
Madras High Court speaking through
Ramaswami, J. (as his Lordship then was) in
Govindammal v. Marimuthu Maistry
[Govindammal v. Marimuthu Maistry, 1957
SCC OnLine Mad 47: AIR 1959 Mad 7) had
sounded the note of caution observing as
under : (SCC OnLine Mad para 5)
"5. The decisions appear to be fairly
clear that even in cases where there is no
express authorisation to enter into a
compromise, under the inherent authority
impliedly given to the Vakil he has power to
enter into the compromise on behalf of his
client. But in the present state of the clientele
world and the position in which the Bar now
finds itself and in the face of divided judicial
authority and absence of statutory backing
prudence dictates that unless express power
is given in the vakalatnama itself to enter into
compromise, in accordance with the general
practice obtaining a special vakalatnama
should be filed or the specific consent of the
party to enter into the compromise should be
obtained. If an endorsement is made on the
plaint, etc. it would be better to get the
signature or the thumb impression of the
party affixed thereto, making it evident that
the party is aware of what is being done by
the Vakil on his or her behalf."
5.6 In the present case, there is no express
authorisation by defendant no.5 allowing M Mehta
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60928
RFA No. 815 of 2018
C/W RFA No. 204 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010152432018
to sign the compromise on his behalf, nor is there
anything on record to demonstrate the exigent
circumstances which prompted the counsel to act
without seeking a clear approval from defendant
no.5. In absence of the aforesaid, the 'voluntary’
aspect mandated by Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908, which is essential for a
compromise decree cannot be established on the
record. As such, the requirements of Rule 3 have
not been complied with. The resulting compromise
is contrary to law.”
5. In the case on hand, although the appellants
herein are parties to the suit and are members of the
same family, they have not signed the joint memo. The
Trial Court has erred in decreeing the suit on the basis of
the joint memo filed by only some of the parties. On this
short ground alone, the appeals deserve to be allowed by
setting aside the judgment and decree and remitting the
matter back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration, in
accordance with law.
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60928
RFA No. 815 of 2018
C/W RFA No. 204 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010152432018
6. The further case of the appellants in RFA
No.815/2018 is that, during the pendency of these
proceedings, the legal representatives of the third plaintiff
have sold the suit property in favour of respondent Nos.15
and 16 herein. In view of the same, the matter also
requires to be remitted to the Trial Court for fresh
consideration after affording an opportunity to all the
concerned parties.
7. In view of the above, the following order is
passed:
ORDER
(i) The appeals are allowed.
(ii) The judgment and decree dated 27.10.2016
passed by the XV Additional City Civil and Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S. No.3909/2010, is hereby
set aside.
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60928
RFA No. 815 of 2018
C/W RFA No. 204 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010152432018
(iii) The matter is remitted to the Trial Court for
fresh consideration, in accordance with law, after
affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellants
and respondents herein.
(iv) The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the
matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably within
one year from the date of receipt of a certified copy
of this order.
(v) In view of the disposal of the main matter,
all pending I.As. stand disposed of as having become
infructuous.
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA
(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD)
JUDGE
CM
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 80