- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10549-DB RFA No. 1956 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1956 OF 2018 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SHIRIJAN W/O LATE SHEIK AMEER, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O MASJID ROAD, KONANDUR, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT PIN: 577 432. 2. SHEIK MUKTHIYAR S/O LATE SHEIK AMEER, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O MASJID ROAD, KONANDUR, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT PIN: 577 432. 3. ABDUL REHAMAN S/O LATE SHEIK AMEER, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O MASJID ROAD, KONANDUR, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT PIN: 577 432. 4. SMT. MUBEENA W/O SHAKEER AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10549-DB RFA No. 1956 of 2018 R/O MASJID ROAD, KONANDUR, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT PIN: 577 432. 5. SMT. KOUSAR W/O LATE SHEIK ISMAIL AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O T.B.ROAD, YADEHALLI VILLAGE SAGAR TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT PIN: 577 401. 6. THABREEZ S/O LATE SHEIK ISMAIL AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/O T.B.ROAD, YADEHALLI VILLAGE SAGAR TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT PIN: 577 401. 7. SABREEN D/O. LATE SHEIK ISMAIL AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/O T.B.ROAD, YADEHALLI VILLAGE SAGAR TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT PIN: 577 401. 8. THOSUF S/O LATE SHEIK ISMAIL AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS R/O T.B.ROAD, YADEHALLI VILLAGE SAGAR TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT PIN: 577 401. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10549-DB RFA No. 1956 of 2018 9. SALMA D/O LATE SHEIK ISMAIL AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS R/O T.B.ROAD, YADEHALLI VILLAGE SAGAR TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT PIN: 577 401. MINOR REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT. KOUSAR W/O LATE SHEIK ISMAIL, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O T.B.ROAD, YADEHALLI VILLAGE SAGAR TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 10. SHOUKATH ALI S/O SHEIK GHANI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O T.B.ROAD YADEHALLI VILLAGE SAGAR TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT PIN: 577 401. 11. KHALEEL S/O SHEIK GHANI AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/O T.B.ROAD, YADEHALLI VILLAGE SAGAR TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT PIN: 577 401. 12. JIYAUALLA S/O SHEIK GHANI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/O T.B.ROAD, YADEHALLI VILLAGE - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10549-DB RFA No. 1956 of 2018 SAGAR TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT PIN: 577 401. 13. SHAFIULLA S/O ABDUL GHANI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/O T.B.ROAD, YADEHALLI VILLAGE SAGAR TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT PIN: 577 401. 14. SAJIDULLA W/O REHAMATTULLA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/O N.T.ROAD SHIVAMOGGA CITY PIN: 577 401. 15. PARVEEN W/O SHEIK AHAMMAD AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O T.B.ROAD, YADEHALLI VILLAGE SAGAR TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT PIN: 577 401. 16. SMT NAGEEN W/O JABIULLA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/O INDIRANAGAR KONANDOOR THIRTHAHALLI, SHIVAMOGGA CITY PIN: 577 432. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. HARISH KUMAR M S, ADVOCATE) - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10549-DB RFA No. 1956 of 2018 AND: 1. GOUSE SHAREEF S/O KOTHWALA ABDUL REHAMAN SAB AGED 60 YEARS R/O ACHARAPURA VILLAGE SAGAR TALUK SHIVAMOOGA DISTRICT PIN: 577 401. 2. ABDUL REHAMAN S/O. SHEIK AHAMMAD AGED 63 YEARS R/O S.H.O OUTPOST, POLICE STATION, TALAGUPPA, SAGAR TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT PIN: 577 401. 3. ABDUL RAHEEM S/O. SHEIK AHAMMAD AGED 64 YEARS RTD FORESTER OF FOREST DEPARTMENT, R/O 4TH CROSS, NEHARU NAGAR SAGAR CITY SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT PIN: 577 401. 4. GOUSE PHEER S/O. SHEIK AHAMMAD AGED 63 YEARS R/O 4TH CROSS, NEHARU NAGAR SAGAR CITY SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT PIN: 577 401. 5. NISSAR S/O SHEIK AHAMMAD AGED 42 YEARS R/O 4TH CROSS, NEHARU NAGAR SAGAR CITY SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10549-DB RFA No. 1956 of 2018 PIN: 577 401. 6. SMT. KAIRUNNISA W/O. LATE MOHAMMAD GOUSE AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/O NASTHARU MUNDALI POST BATKAL TALUK KARWAR DISTRICT PIN: 581 354. 7. SMT PARVEEN W/O ISMAIL @ BABU AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/O HOSUR AYANUR POST, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT PIN: 577 201. 8. SMT. RIHANA W/O SHEEDA KHAN AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/O SULEBAILU NEAR G.V.H.P SCHOOL SHIVAMOGGA CITY PIN: 577 201. 9. JAVEED BASHA S/O JABBAR SAB AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/O YADEHALLI VILLAGE ANANDAPURAM HOBLI, SAGAR TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT PIN: 577 401. 10. MUKTHIYAR BASHA S/O JABBAR SAB AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/O YADEHALLI VILLAGE - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10549-DB RFA No. 1956 of 2018 ANANDAPURAM HOBLI, SAGAR TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT PIN: 577 401. 11. SMT. SHAREEFBI W/O MUSTHAF AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/O 1ST CROSS, TIPPU NAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA CITY PIN: 577 401. 12. SMT. REHATH JAN D/O HUSSEN SHAREEF AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O BEHIND MEENAKSHI BHAVEN HOTEL, 1ST CROSS, JOSEPH NAGAR SHIVAMOGGA CITY PIN: 577 201. 13. SMT. SUFIYA ANJUM W/O NASEER AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/O BEHIND MEENASKHI BHAVEN HOTEL, 1ST CROSS, JOSEPH NAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA CITY PIN: 577 201. 14. SMT. SUMMI D/O. HUSSEN SHAREEF AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O BEHIND MEENAKSHI BHAVEN HOTEL 1ST CROSS, JOSEPH NAGAR SHIVAMOGGA CITY PIN: 577 201. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10549-DB RFA No. 1956 of 2018 15. SMT. ARSHIYA D/O HUSSEN SHAREEF AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/O BEHIND MEENKASHI BHAVEN HOTEL, 1ST CROSS, JOSEPH NAGAR SHIVAMOGGA CITY PIN: 577 201. 16. SMT. SHAMMU D/O HUSSEN SHAREEF AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/O BEHIND MEENKASHI BHAVEN HOTEL, 1ST CROSS, JOSEPH NAGAR SHIVAMOGGA CITY PIN: 577 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BIMBADHAR M GOWDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R6, R7 & R8; R4, R5, R9 & R10 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS RFA IS FILED U/S.96 OF CPC 1908, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.04.2017 PASSED IN OS.NO.28/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SAGAR AND ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10549-DB RFA No. 1956 of 2018 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) One Mr. Abdul Rehaman Sab had four wives, by name, Kulasambi, Fathimabi, Zaheerabi and Maidunbi. The first wife, i.e., Kulasambi died issueless. The children born to the remaining three wives, 32 in number, are the plaintiff and the defendants in the suit. The plaintiff before the Trial Court is the son of fourth wife Maidunbi. 2. Admittedly, there was no partition effected between the parties before the death of Mr. Abdul Rehaman, father of the plaintiff and the defendants. It is stated that the defendant Nos.2 and 5 and mother of the plaintiff got mutated the revenue documents of the plaint schedule properties as if there was a partition in the year 1994-1995. The parties to the suit have been enjoying the plaint schedule properties jointly. Mr. Abdul Rehaman died between 1964 and 1965. The plaintiff and the defendants are the tenants in common in respect of the plaint schedule properties and when the plaintiff demanded his share in the said properties, the defendants have postponed the same for one reason or the other. Now, the defendants are saying that they had bought the suit schedule property in the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10549-DB RFA No. 1956 of 2018 year 1994-1995 without there being any record / evidence to substantiate their assertions. 3. Considering the fact that the entire suit schedule properties belong to their father, the Trial Court, by the preliminary decree, has divided the shares in the following manner:- “The suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants is decreed with cost. Plaintiff is entitled for 2/12th share, defendant No.12 is entitled for 2/12th share, defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and their four sisters are together entitled to 2/12th share, defendant Nos. 6 to 10 and 18 to 20 are together entitled to 2/12th share, defendant Nos.5(a) to 5(e) are together entitled to 2/12th share, defendant Nos. 13 to 17 are together entitled to 2/12th share, and defendant Nos. 11(a) to 11(e) are together entitled to 1/12th share in the plaint schedule properties. Joint shares of the defendant Nos. 1 to 4, their sisters, defendant Nos.6 to 10,18 to 20, 5(a) to 5(e), 13 to 17 and 11(a) to 11(e) in the plaint schedule properties are in turn subject to their definite shares in the said properties as per the Mohammedan law of succession. Shares of the parties to the suit and the four sisters of the defendant Nos.1 to 4 in the item No.5 of the plaint schedule properties are subject to the actual extent and boundaries of the said property. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10549-DB RFA No. 1956 of 2018 Draw preliminary decree accordingly.” 4. The final decree proceedings are pending, and it is well settled that in final decree proceedings, evidence that was not brought during the preliminary decree may be adduced and the decree may be modified. We, therefore, do not want to interfere with the impugned order, as only the preliminary decree passed by the learned Trial Court is the subject matter in this appeal. 5. We, therefore, dismiss the * appeal, without cost. Pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and the same are disposed of. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE BSS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2 *The word 'Writ' is deleted vide chamber order dated:13.03.2026.