- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15813-DB RFA No. 100054 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100054 OF 2020 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. MAHAMMAD RAFIQ, S/O. SAIYADSAB KUDACHI, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS, R/O: KUDACHI CHAL, MALLAMA NAGAR CROSS, MUDHOL-587313, DISTRICT: BAGALKOT. 2. SRI. FAYAJ S/O. SAIYADSAB KUDACHI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS, R/O: KUDACHI CHAL, MALLAMA NAGAR CROSS, MUDHOL-587313, DISTRICT: BAGALKOT. 3. SRI. RIYAJAHAMMAD S/O. SAIYADSAB KUDACHI, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS, R/O: KUDACHI CHAL, MALLAMA NAGAR CROSS, MUDHOL-587313, DISTRICT: BAGALKOT. 4. SRI. ABUBAKAR S/O. SAIYADSAB KUDACHI, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS, R/O: NEAR MANDA BASAPPA TEMPLE, MUDHOL-587313, DISTRICT: BAGALKOT. 5. SMT. MAHABUBI W/O. SAIYADSAB KUDACHI, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD & AGRICULTURE, R/O: NEAR MANDA BASAPPA TEMPLE, MUDHOL-587313, DISTRICT: BAGALKOT. 6. SMT. AAYEESHA W/O. SHAFIQ JAGIRDAR, AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: KUNDARAGI, TQ: BILAGI, DISTRICT: BAGALKOT. Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.11.20 10:12:24 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15813-DB RFA No. 100054 of 2020 7. KUMAR. ISMAIL S/O. SAIYADSAB KUDACHI, AGE: 20 YEARS, R/O: NEAR MANDA BASAPPA TEMPLE, MUDHOL-587313, DISTRICT: BAGALKOT. 8. KUMARI. BISMILLA D/O. SAIYADSAB KUDACHI, AGE: 19 YEARS, R/O: NEAR MANDA BASAPPA TEMPLE, MUDHOL-587313, DISTRICT: BAGALKOT. - APPELLANTS (BY SRI. J.S.SHETTY ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. G.P.PATTAR AND SMT. DEEPA UDIYAR, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SRI. VISWHANATH S/O. BASAVARAJ SAVALAGI, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT. 2. SMT. KARUNA W/O. GIRISH BANGI, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: MUDHOL ROAD, JAMKHANDI-587301, DIST: BAGALKOT. 3. SRI. MAHAMADSHARIN S/O. IMMAMSAB GOTHE, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: BEHIND GOKUL INDIAN OIL PETROL PUMP, MAHALINGAPUR-587312, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT. 4. SMT. HALIMA W/O. SHABIIRSAB BANNUR, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: JAYANAGAR, MUDHOL-587 313, DIST: BAGALKOT. 5. SMT. SAHEBI W/O. SAIYADSAB KUDACHI, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: MALLAMA NAGAR CROSS, LOKAPUR ROAD, MUDHOL-587 313, DIST: BAGALKOT. 6. SMT. RASULBI W/O. IBRAHIMSAB HANAGANDI, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD AND AGRICULTURE, R/O: TERDAL, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 7. SMT. SAYARABANU W/O. JAMALSAB MULTANI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD AND AGRICULTURE, R/O: KUDACHI CHAL, MALLAMA NAGAR CROSS, MUDHOL-587313, DIST: BAGALKOT. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15813-DB RFA No. 100054 of 2020 8. SMT. SHAMASHAD W/O. DASTAGIRSAB BUDNESHI, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD AND AGRICULTURE, R/O: KUDACHI CHAL, MALLAMA NAGAR CROSS, MUDHOL-587313, DIST: BAGALKOT. 9. SMT. SHARIFA W/O. MAHEBUBSAB SARWAD, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD AND AGRICULTURE, R/O: JAYANAGAR, MUDHOL-587313, DIST: BAGALKOT. 10. SMT. FARIDA W/O. BANDENAWAJ DONI, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD AND AGRICULTURE, R/O: NEAR JAI-VIJAY SCHOOL, MANTUR ROAD, MUDHOL-587313, DIST: BAGALKOT. 11. SMT. MEENAXI W/O. SATISH BANDIWADDAR, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT. - RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.R.BENTUR AND SRI. SHIVAPRASAD S.PATIL, ADVOCATES FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. AVINASH BANAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI AND SRI. PAVAN B.DODDATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R11; NOTICE TO R5 TO R9 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED; VIDE ORDER DATED 03.01.2024, NOTICE TO R3 AND R8 IS HELD SUFFICIENT; R4-APPEAL STAND DISMISSED) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.11.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.128/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, MUDHOL &ETC. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15813-DB RFA No. 100054 of 2020 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS) This regular first appeal is filed by the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 128/2016 dated 11.11.2019 on the file of the learned Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Mudhol, being aggrieved of the dismissal of the suit. 2. For the sake of convenience the parties shall be referred to in terms of their ranking before the trial Court. 3. The brief background in which the suit is filed, seeking partition is that one Syed Sab had purchased the suit schedule property on 17.05.1988, in the name of his first wife Smt. Sahebi (defendant No.5). It is the contention of the plaintiffs that Sahebi executed a gift deed dated 30.04.2010, gifting the property back to Sri Syed Sab. Nevertheless, Sahebi raised a contention before the revenue authorities that she had not intended to transfer the property in favour of Syed Sab and therefore the revenue entries should not be transferred in his favour. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15813-DB RFA No. 100054 of 2020 Immediately thereafter Sahebi filed a suit in O.S. No. 140/2010 on 14.06.2010 seeking declaration of title in respect of the suit schedule property and to declare that she continues to be in possession of the suit schedule property although the gift deed was executed by her in favour of her husband. Sri Syed Sab is defendant No.1 in the said suit and he contested the matter before the trial Court. To complete the genealogical tree, it would be relevant to mention that Syed Sab had two wives, Smt. Sahebi and Smt.Mahaboobi. Smt. Sahebi had two sons and six daughters. Smt. Mahaboobi had four sons and one daughter. It appears that during the course of the said suit in O.S. No. 140/2010 Sahebi executed a gift deed dated 29.11.2010 gifting the suit schedule property in favour of one of her daughters, Smt. Haleema. 4. It is the submission of the learned counsels for the appellants and the contesting respondents that interim order of injunctions were passed by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff Smt. Sahebi and subsequently in favour of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15813-DB RFA No. 100054 of 2020 the first defendant Sri Syed Sab injuncting Smt.Haleema from alienating the suit schedule property during the pendency of the suit. It is nevertheless pointed out from the order sheet itself that as on the date when an order of temporary injunction was passed by the trial Court on 21.11.2011, Smt. Haleema was not a party to the proceedings. The application, although filed earlier, formal orders were passed on 27.02.2012 permitting the plaintiff to amend the plaint to implead Smt.Haleema. Smt.Haleema, although, served with the notice did not appear in the said suit but proceeded to execute the sale deeds in favour of defendant No.1 on 12.09.2013; in favour of defendant No.2 on 28.03.2013 and in favour of defendant No. 3 on 29.05.2013, disposing the suit schedule property by dividing the same into three parts. Defendant No.3 thereafter sold her share of the property to defendant No. 11 on 16.03.2015. All these transactions have taken place during the pendency of the suit in O.S. No. 140/2010. Smt. Mahaboobi, along with all her children and the two - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15813-DB RFA No. 100054 of 2020 sons of Smt. Sahebi are plaintiffs in the present suit, claiming a share in the suit schedule properties. 5. The suit filed by the plaintiffs has been dismissed at the hands of the trial Court. The appellants/ plaintiffs have filed an application in I.A. No. 1/2015 under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to produce four documents by way of additional evidence. The four documents are the original gift deed dated 30.04.2010 executed by Smt. Sahebi in favour of Syed Sab Kudachi; certified copy of the order sheet maintained in O.S. No. 140/2010; copy of the plaint in O.S. No. 140/2010 and copy of the memo filed by the plaintiff to close the suit as not pressed. 6. During the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for Smt.Haleema submitted that she had no knowledge of the orders passed by the civil Court preventing her from alienating the suit schedule property. Nevertheless, if sufficient opportunity is given to her, she will be able to demonstrate before the Court that her action - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15813-DB RFA No. 100054 of 2020 in disposing of the suit schedule property during the pendency of the suit is bonafide and the subsequent purchasers’ rights should be protected in law. 7. During the course of the proceedings we have also noticed that the plaintiffs have not sought for a declaration that the gift deed executed by Smt.Sahebi in favour of Smt.Haleema and the sale deeds executed by Smt.Haleema in favour of defendants No.1 to 3 and the subsequent sale deed executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No. 11 are not binding on the plaintiffs. 8. Having regard to the fact that four documents which may be relevant for consideration at the hands of the trial Court, viz, the original gift deed executed by Sahebi in favour of Smt.Syed Sab and the copy of the plaint and the order sheet maintained in O.S. No. 140/2010, are now sought to be produced by the plaintiffs and the fact that a declaration was not sought by the plaintiffs regarding the binding nature of the gift deed executed by Sahebi in favour - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15813-DB RFA No. 100054 of 2020 of Syed Sab and the gift deed executed by Sahebi in favour of Smt.Haleema and the subsequent sale deeds, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the trial Court for affording an opportunity to the plaintiffs to produce the documents as sought to be produced along with I.A. No. 1/2025. An opportunity is also required to be given to Smt.Haleema who was placed exparte, to have her say in the matter. 9. Accordingly we proceed to set aside the judgment passed in O.S. No. 128/2016 dated 11.11.2019 on the file of the learned Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Mudhol, while remanding the matter back to the trial Court for fresh consideration on merits. I.A. No. 1/2025 filed by the appellants herein/ plaintiffs is allowed. Liberty is also given to the plaintiffs to amend the prayer to add the prayer for declaration that subsequent sale deeds executed during the pendency of the suit are not binding on the plaintiffs. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15813-DB RFA No. 100054 of 2020 The trial Court shall permit the plaintiffs to adduce additional evidence for the purpose of marking the documents produced along with I.A. No. 1/2025 and at the request of plaintiffs to adduce further evidence if required. An opportunity shall be afforded to Smt.Haleema to file written statement and to adduce evidence. Depending on the written statement that would be filed by Smt. Haleema, the trial Court shall permit the subsequent purchasers/ defendants No.1, 2, 3 and 11 to file additional written statement if necessary. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 10.12.2025 without waiting for further notice. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (R.DEVDAS) JUDGE Sd/- (B. MURALIDHARA PAI) JUDGE BVV Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24