IN T HE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF EEERUAR3{2e:'es: f
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE Ki;":I3IiAIs'iTi?Lff$V'}§TSiiL1X'1]i
WRIT PETITION NOS.1363'.&'-.1364';'2Qw10iviGM='CPC]
BETWEEN
1. Smt. Achee Saheba Bibi, _ Q_ _
D/0 late Smt. Bibi Saheba Bibi,' ' '--
Age: 80 years, " .
R/0 78, Sri Ramachancizfa.__RicieViii\/Iiiiii _ . V I
Street, Sunnanda Keri.
Channapatna--5715;01'.[' i A V' =
Ramanagar District, C__
2. Ahmad Ali, _ _ _
S/0 late Smt. Aja Saheba~.'Bi.b'i,< " __
Age: 65 years, A . _ "
R/at No.596, syed Siraj VM_o1:a1;i:.».-;i
Daira, Chanri;ipas::1a~5'3'..1 V501 '
Ram,2in'agar -I)'i~st_rict_. ---------- ~ Petitioners
[By Sr. Counsel, for
V N M'ada\fa.r"edd~y;'i Adv., for Petitioners)
*1?
'-1j..sri'E Mehamea Khasim.
V'VS/si"~1a"te Bflvioharned Ibrahim,
V 'Age: 30 -years,
_N§3.596, S3/ed Siraj Mohalla,
'fig'-.iira§'
Channapatna--57 1 50 1.
Ramanagar District.
2. Smt. Shamsunnisa,
Age: 52 years.
D/o late 13 Mohammed Ibrahim.
R/a 1\Eo.'7'71/1C, H M Mohalla,
Farha Road, Daira,
Channapatna«--571 501, x
Ramanagar District. _:._VR.e_sVpo:1d'ents
(By Ms. Gohwhar Unnisa. Adv.. for caveatAo.rs:;'_Ii{.-1 '~ 22
These Writ Petitions are"'filed."i1nde[r Articles 226 8: 227 of the
Constitution of India. praying"'toqixash, the oxrder dated 27.11.2009
passed on I.A.72 by the Prl. Civil'? Judge (SrV."I)fiv_n.} at Ramanagaram,
vide Axmexure~H. -- " I ..
These Petitions
_ é _ for-._"p1te'Ii1:1'iiVi1ary hearing this day,
the Court made theifoliowifigz ' " 0-
The petitioners,/hp'iaiif1Vtiff_»N'o's.3(b) and 3(a) in F1)? No.2/1984 on
the fi1e*o_f gtiuctge (';§r;"-----I3'ivn.) at Ramanagararn, are before this
Court the order dated 27.11.2009 passed on
I.}1v.'?.2,in the__4'ahb0ve?sai}d case at Ax1nexure--H and consequently allow
'aiid deletejglaintiff No.-5.3(c} and 3&1) from the array of parties
A2 the Fi1ia:1vDéA.'3I"6E£ Proceedings.
2. Sri M S Rajendra Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the plaintiff, submits that the petitioners filed an application
under Section 151 of C P C in the Final Decree Proceedings praying
to delete plaintiff Nos.3(c), {d} and (e) from the causveltitlpe on the
ground that as per Mohammoden Law, they are any
share in the property. It is subrnittedwthat "ne§1»¢ge
Proceedings, the parties can be
cited reported in ILR 2008 KAR itllilfday
Kumar and Others]. it it
3. Learned Counsel that there is
no illegality or infirrnityiilin and the respondents
are entitled to t.h’e.’l?’inal Decree Proceedings.
4;, The l?fina.l Decree: Proceedings No.2/84 arises out of decree
madeiin Learned trial Judge has observed in the
ir;11pugned’orderV”th’at the stage of irnpleading the respondents on
reeo_rd,’vtherelv.vas objection from the petitioners. It is further
:spt:§’t,¢:d’ ‘ipI.ainltiff Nos.3(e),{d) and (e) have come on record by an
by the trial Court and that if they are not deleted
array of parties in the F D P, the plaintiff No,3[b) Wiil not
bepnt to any hardship. Piaintiff Ne.3[c} vi2:., respondent No.1 herein
L
has claimed that he has sold one of the items of the suit property
along with plaintiff i\io.3(b) and Ahmed Ali and C A Mohammed
Usmah and there is an agreement dated 19.12.199?,1\eherein the
right of the plaintiff No.3(c) is recognized. After J£ii.e_i.’above
observation, the trial Court has held that»AA,the
deleted. The trial Court has rightly rejecitiedtv fiied:
under Section 151 of C P C for deievtio’n
(e) from the cause title. The;_decisVio.ri”}t:_it’eti iearned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner is”ofA see no illegality or
dismissed.
Keeping in is of the year 1946–47, the trial
Courtvéis. case it; F D P No.2/1984 on the file
of Ci\Ari1__ at Ramanagaram, is disposed of, in
a:evco.rvdanee’ three months from thefdate of receipt
gr of this
_t Sap
REESE
Bjs”