{"id":114417,"date":"2008-09-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hajarabi-vs-jainabbi-on-26-september-2008"},"modified":"2019-02-08T21:25:10","modified_gmt":"2019-02-08T15:55:10","slug":"hajarabi-vs-jainabbi-on-26-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hajarabi-vs-jainabbi-on-26-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Hajarabi vs Jainabbi on 26 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Hajarabi vs Jainabbi on 26 September, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: V.G Sabhahit S.N.Satyanarayana<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OFAAKARNATAi\u20ac3\u00a7~..  \n\n..0'os.__\" \u00bb\n\nPRETSHEN3' . % .V  \nTHE HONBLE MR JUS'1*\u00a3\u00a2E1V.G;s.\u00abj$HAHi3'\n      \nTHE. HOIWBLE MR'q't;sT2(;I:\u00a7s.:\u00a7;\u00e9ATY.aNARAYANA\n\nREGULAR F112s';'..\u00bb\u00a7PPaA.L. 1\u00a7\"c;_.2'0<)3\n_..R::\u00abfA.5gj1::_0ss Q.:3 .JE\u00a7:'.rf:or~: $46.34\u00bb\/2004\n\nIn  ' '\n8ETwEEVN;' . ' "\n\n1  ..E~IAJAR.ABI..I- .\n..  W] O.GAF1....IRKHAN SOUDAGAR\n' EX"GE'D.82, GCCEQHOUSEHOLD WORK\n_R,'. _0,B;~<::.N0. 1 13, CAMPBELGAUM\n\n ~.  V'Si\u00a7{;*\\_N'f;.\u00a7:'\u00a7iRKHAN\n\nS;'.O;\u00a3\u00a7AFURKHAN SOUDAGAR\nz'-\u00a3633.62, OCC.BUSINESS\n'~ vR{iO.BC.NO.113, CAMP\nBELGAUM.   . .APPELLAN'I'S\n\nM *. (Ey' Sri ; G BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY )\n\n* !'sE\\I\u00a73 :\n\n: ' JAZNABBI\nW]O.GAFURKI-{AN SOUIIAGAR\nAGED\/72, OCC.H\u20ac)USEHOLD wom:\nR\/0.82, MARKET STREET\nCAMP, BELGAUM\n\n\n\nFAIZA\nW\/QMUSTAKHMEED HONGAL\n\nAGE1150, OCC..i~+IOUSEHOLD WORK \nH.NO.23, KHANAPUR R0AD,..eAM\u00a7= \n\nBELGAUM \n\n'BiLK\u00a7S  _  \nW\/CLABDUL SAMAD Ki~1.AN.APUR-I\n\nAGED.-48, JO.\u00a732,._. MARKET \n\nCAM33', SELGA!.}M\"~ff--   M.\n\nQEAB-BEN'    ' %\nW}O.'MOHA\u00a3V1_1y\u20acEDR?s\u00abFi'Q MULLA\nAGE:D_.42, CiC(lH'QU;SEHOLD wow;\n\nV _ 3\/ 0. };8,V_1m:3f1----MA. MANz:L,\n P 3 RCAD,._NEAR SUXT PROPERTY\n\" B;LIN\u00bbagaLow,\"';8--ELGAuM\n\n\" V . I}\u00bb2j*I?z*2a;%;K}\u00a7AN\n. , 3'\/c;~.,<3m?URKHAN soumem\n' AG_EI3t_-\u20ac~{), OCC.'I'RADE,\n\nR-]O.'S2, MARKET STREET\n\n~~f;?A'MP, BELGAUM\n\n" SHAKEELA\n D\/O.-GAFURKHAN SOUDAGAR\n\n37 YEARS, OCC.\u00a7~IOUSEHGi..D WORK\nR\/0.82, MARKET STREET\nCAMP, BELGAUM\n\nILYAZ\nS] O.GAFURKHAN SOU DAGAR\nMAJOR, OCC.SI'UDEN'I'\n\n\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\nR\/0.82, MARKET STREET\nCAMP, BELGAUM   \n\nBiBIZOHRA   .--\nD\/{).GAFUi?I{I~~IAN SOUDAGAR \nAGED33, OCC.HQUS;?3_H{}LIL} wmex\nR\/0.82, MARKET s1'REE'r" \nCAMP, BELGAUM \n\nKADARKHAN yr," C\n\nS\/QGAFURKHAN    \n\nAGED.32,V_OCC.S'w.E1ENT,  .\nR\/O.82.,M_ARKET  % \nCAMf?,j._nBE:L{}_\u00a3';L.II%'!    \n\nAY1i13,1<1i-$25,151 GA.F:_\ufb01\u00e9KHAri"' SC?13 [)AGAR\n\n.AGE.}3;30, '\u00e9::2:gc.&;w_9ENTVV... \n<R\/0f8'2v;'..1MAF%KET\u00a3*?REET\nTBEL{}A!J_M.: -~.., M=. \n\nAH'AMi&:i,)ALI   " '\n\n-- . s\/o.\u00a7\u00ab;QHAMM13m%iUss1AN SHAIKH\n\nMAJOR, '{;)CC. SERVICE\n\n R;<)';\u00a7;.No.6'i,"Ixz:AR1<E:T STREET\n\n15\n\n.,C1*.MP,"~--B_ELGAUM\n\nA\ufb01\u00a7DULSAT?AR BUDANSAB BISTI\nMAJQR, 0630. BUSINESS\nE?\/()'.\u00a7~I.NO.61, MARKET S'I'REE'}'\n\n" CAMP, BELGAUM\n\nQ J SUMIT\nMAJOR, OCQSERVECE\nR]0.HC}U No.23,\nKHANAPUR ROAD,\nCAMP, BELGAUM\n\nMUSHATAQ A HANAGAL\nMAJOR, OCQSERVICE3\nH.NO.23, KHANAPUR ROAD\n\n\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n29 . \n\n \n\n \n   KARNATAKA BANK\n\n23\n\nCAMP, BELGAUM\n\nBABUSAHEI3 M NADA?'\n\nMIKJOR, OCQSERVICE\nGROUND FLOOR, H.NO.48   \nMARKET STREET, CAMP V\nBELGAUM\n\nMOHAN G GODLUR  \nMAJOR, R\/0.133' FLOORV  ~\nH.NO.48, MARKET' S'FREE'\u00a7'~.__ \nCAMP, BELGAUEV1 _ " ' .' V \n\nABDULLATIF AB9U:}A:\u00ab:j'2;':EsAN<\u00a7Ai2;::i;'_'_.\n\nMAJOR, C{":c.Bu.s;reEss'- %  A\nR\/o.H.:N0,5;3., MAR;__<:E.'.i" \nCAME.    \n\nmg  MAf\u00a2A%}ER~-    % \n\nSYf\u00a7_{)IQA'F\u00bbE i3A--N_K'-- " * \nCAME, BELG\u00a7A{3_M=.,\n\nTHE MAINAQER .\n\nSYNIBECATE BANK\n\n* 1.  MAINBIEANCH, BELGAUM\n\n'fi\u00a7\u00a73'."M;'{i\\Ej5sGEI?\nSTATE: BANK OF INDIA\nN\u00a3AINBRANCH, KHANAPUR ROAD\n\nBEILGAUM\n\nTHE MANAGER\n\nKAUOLKAR GALLI\nBELGAUM\n\nSHAME}?!\nW] QHASANSAB SOUDAGAR\n67' YEARS, OCC.HQUSE\u00a7~IOLD WORK\n\nR] C}.MARKET STREET\n\n\n\nEN RFA.CR\u20ac)B N0 34 OF' 2004\n\nBETWEEN\n\n1\n\nJAINABBI '  \nW\/O GAFURKHAN SQUDAGAR-._ "\n\n72 YRS, occ: HOUSEHQ_L1'3_WORE{__ ' .\n\nNo.82, MARKET STREET;\u00a3I'._AM P\nBELGAUM.  _  \n\nFAEZA  \n\nW\/O MUSTAKHMED  V ;A \n50 YRS, occ; HG'US'EH\u00a5OLD_'WO\u00a7<'K:. *\n2~1.N.23,' E{IjIANAPUR'wROADV  VA \n\nCAMP:    \n\nkw; O\"A.I%3DULi\"fS'AMAD KHANAPUR\u00a5\n'43 Y:2s,'c;\u00bb.cLD:'WQRK'ww.  \n32, MARKET STR.EE\"_I;.CAM,P ' \"  '\nBELGAUM  I   \nKAQARKHAMQ - ,* ' '[.g\nS\/O' (}Ai\u00a7'URKIr'i}'i1\u00a7I SOUQAGAR\n32..Y_Rs,_ 0E;g::,.Bi\u00a3s;m::ss...,,.,.. \n\nR10 82; MA\u00a7?1<m".<:\u00a5r;2EET, CAMP\n'13E1.,GAUM'j~-_,_'  ~  -\n\nAYUBKHAN C;z3;FLr\u00a7;2;HAN SOUDAGAR\n\n_ 30 YRS, 00\u00a2' BUSINESS\n\ni we N<:}';a2, MAEfKE'I' S'I'RE}3'I' CAMP\n\n"   ' ..... ..\n\nAND ':\n\n1,,\n\n ACROSS OBJECTORS\n\n T' sgfsfy' 314%-v::_:R}XV\u00a7K'l.IMAR.DGOKAKAKAR )\n\n.}%;%JARABAi GAFURKE-IAN SOUDAGAR\n3:2. YRS, occ: HOUSEHOLD WORK\n\n B.C,NO. 3. 13, CAMP BELGAUM\n\nH SIKHANDARKHAN GAFURKHAN S\u20ac)i}DAGrAR\n\n62 YRS, GCC BUSINESS\nB.C.NO. 1 13,\n\nCAMP, BELGAUM. ... RESPONDENTS<\/pre>\n
(By Sri: G. BALAKRISH NA SHASTRY, ADV. )<\/p>\n
 ‘ <\/p>\n
THIS RFACROB IS FILED [V0 41 R 2:3.’ R\/wi’ 4_
\n151 OF eve AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND’–DESERVE .131′. ” ., <\/p>\n
16.6.08 PASSED IN o.s.Nc;.65\/92-:0’N~–T1\u00bb~m FILE’-.01? *i’HEN.), BELG;\\U–M”, P.txI\u00a7\u00a7_T1..Y. I
\nDECREEING THE SUIT ma PAR’I’I”{*IOF\u00a3 AND’PQes\u00a7:ss_I~a.N’–..
\nAND RENEITION OF THE V.AC.-COUNTS ONL’;~’u’I”O we _
\nEXTENT I’I’ AFFECTS AIBVERSLYVTHE”E1’sI’1’ERES’F..:’O’FV THE *
\nCROSS-OBJECTORS HEREXN, IN’ f1f:+iE_ sure .9m-‘PERTIES.<\/p>\n
The RFA and ._(1ro_;\u20ac:. s.s j.  on for
\nhearing ans} reserved for’j1ie\u00a5;g::;e3;it,}  .day’_ SABHAHIT, J.,
\npronounced the followingg”  V 1   <\/p>\n
e 3 \u00a32.96 ;hrEz\u00a7\u00e9* e L <\/p>\n
This   eejec\ufb01on arise out of the
\njudgmeViif”jjas5.\u00a7e\u00a71 \ufb02Pr1.Civ\ufb02 Judge (Sr.DI1.)
\neelgauniix:.o’.s.\u00a7:\u00a7’.’es}9V\u00a7e’-Lriaxed 15.5.2003. The appeen is<\/p>\n
\ufb01led  piaieti\ufb01s  being aggrieved by the judgment<\/p>\n
 ”   passed ‘b3?–the {Tia} court in so far as it dismissed<\/p>\n
  Tst1it'<;:_f"\ufb02:1e jaaainu\ufb02 partiy and cross objec\ufb01on 34\/2004 is<\/p>\n
  1 to E 1 in the suit being aggrieved by the<\/p>\n
V\ufb01nding 91; issue Nos.1  by"the trial court.<\/p>\n
' H 2. The essential facts of the case leading upto this<\/p>\n
u  and the cross objecfion with reference to the rank of<\/p>\n
the palties before the triai court are as follows:<\/p>\n
W3<\/p>\n
().S.No.65\/91 was \ufb01led on the \ufb01ie <\/p>\n
Belgaum by piaintiffs 1 to 5  defengi\u00e9iiiiie'  'te'  b<\/p>\n
During the pendency of the suit  Ne.'3, diedA. ..<\/p>\n
LRS were brought on plvdef d__ate<j.1l1  '}'he <\/p>\n
suit was \ufb01led seeking for a ~agai_nst f}ie\u00abdefe\ufb01dants for
\nawarding plam\ufb01\ufb01 No. 1\/15\u00a2\u00bb-\n<\/p>\n
 2 and 3’s;<\/p>\n
14\/1609′ share each   5’s sham of
\n?\/160*’1    ‘jfifcpee\ufb01es A to E and a
\nseparate A’   ‘equ:itable partition in
\nmetes  ‘tei\u00e9i\u00e9iitjeet.-‘defndant No.6 to furnish the
\naccounte  the  from the accounts of<\/p>\n
Gafu{z;i<i3.a,31  arid fer mense pro\ufb01ts and costs.<\/p>\n
'   :isT'aven*ec\u00a5 in the plaint that the propositus~–<\/p>\n
 Soudagar had two wives by name<\/p>\n
V \u00abV (PIa_i11ti\ufb01' No.1) and Smtdainabbi (Defendant<\/p>\n
H "  iggrz\u00e9g\u00e9 plainti\ufb01e 2 and 3 are the sons am pxamries 4 and<\/p>\n
.' daughters born to the \ufb01xst wife of Ga\ufb01nkhan<\/p>\n
  Soudagar. Defendaxats 6, 8, I0 and 11 are the<\/p>\n
: sons and defendants 2, 3, 5, '7 and 9 are the daughters born<\/p>\n
to Gafurkhan Kadarkhan Soudagar through second wife-<\/p>\n
I0<\/p>\n
Jajnabbi(defe13da.nt No.1). Defendants 12 andgzhe<\/p>\n
tenants in occupation of the property bi":aI'i31g "'.\u00a7O11:S\u20ac:x  <\/p>\n
situated at Market Street,   <\/p>\n
and 15 are the tenants in occupatien__ E16  <\/p>\n
No.23, Khanapur Road, Be1gV:a'131:ii:..VI)efe"nc1a:1ts:   V<\/p>\n
the tenants in di\ufb01efenf,  <\u00a7f\u00bb_ siiuated at
\nMarket Street, camp\u00a7e\u00e91gaum\u00a7'\u00a7-\u00bb%,V No.18 is the
\ntenant in the    sues: camp
\nBelgaunx   they  descxtibed in
\nschedigle '\u00ab'_C'1 lying with defendants 19 to 22–
\nthe  all of them are arrayeci as<\/p>\n
neecfs\u00e9aly  fo the suit. S(':hedu1e\u00abA Comprises of the<\/p>\n
'V   :V%:ii;3movab1e properties. Schedu}e\u00abB discloses<\/p>\n
   purchased in the name of second<\/p>\n
deiL<nda_i1'L-.LA\u00abj"'E\u00a7cheduIe–C discloses bank deyosits, \ufb01xed<\/p>\n
 iiepoeiitsi deczeetal amount of Ge\ufb01ukhan Kadarkhan<\/p>\n
"  Schedule~D consists of descxiption of the<\/p>\n
VM    Kadarkhan Soudaga\ufb01s share in the \ufb01rm Noble<\/p>\n
Shoe Mart and seI’g;m_1t;”Vfeithe\u00a7r.<\/p>\n
Out of the said ancestral prepertiee <\/p>\n
Soudagar sold the property  hheuse  at<\/p>\n
Market Street, Belgaumend  zeeeived-fey him on
\nseiling the said   \ufb01xed deposit as
\ndescribed 2’11 s\u00a2:;ee3Tu1e–e’ ‘to :the_::p3;\u00a7i1’;tt. ‘ ez\ufb01ttt er the remaining
\ntwo   No.82 is being
\nmad’?   residence and the
\nhouse:’-.\u00a7\\Io.23Axvit\u00e9sflteetgt’iet:but  defendants 14 and 15 am}
\nGaf!Jrk}1e;r_: inherited at large extent of<\/p>\n
pmpiertiets ffom..  fat”::he:r. Gafurkhan commenced a shoe<\/p>\n
  the name and style of ‘Nobie Shoe Mart’ in the<\/p>\n
    Belgaum and he took the<\/p>\n
  CTS.No.1961 and 1962 situated at Ramdeo<\/p>\n
 Betgaum on lease from one Sripaudit Bhimaji Potdar<\/p>\n
    his shoe mart by eenverting into a partnership<\/p>\n
V’ l’  consisting of himsei\ufb01 Sheik Yakub Shaikh Ibrahim and<\/p>\n
 plaizatiif No.2 in the newly acquired building in the name anti<\/p>\n
style of ‘Noble Slaw Mart’. In the saici partnership \ufb01xm
\nE, <\/p>\n
Gafurkhan Kadarkhan Souciagar had 25%     <\/p>\n
profits and losses, which is descritjeii at  \ufb01to–7the’g<\/p>\n
piaint. The said firm was looked    ._<\/p>\n
Sheik ibrahim and the \ufb01rm V:is–.\ufb01c:it33er.v.ciis.s;c*}Ji:ti:\u00a71  the ‘ A<\/p>\n
lifetime of Ga\ufb01lrkhanv  ‘I;-or_. his
\ndeath. Therefore, the   to exist
\nand ihe p1ainti.\ufb02-‘stand mg  being the heirs
\nof the   share in the said
\n\ufb01rm.  _  are not yet settled.\n<\/p>\n
 No.2   share in both p ro\ufb01ts and
\niosses.   that. property described in A<\/p>\n
schep\ufb01lile. of fhenialaifxt are the ancestral properties of<\/p>\n
 iiadarkhan Soueiagar, which were inherites by<\/p>\n
  of his father, being the son of his father.<\/p>\n
Uni” of .tI:1eT”‘ ancestral 13I’0P\u20acI’1:ies Gafurkhan Kadarkhan<\/p>\n
  soid the pmgeer\ufb01es beaming house Nos.48 and 63<\/span><\/p>\n
   name of the seeoad w’1fe-\ufb01rs\u00a3 defendant axz\u00e9 the sale<\/p>\n
  ~-consideration received by him has been kegt in Fixed deposit<\/p>\n
which is disclosed in C schedule of the plaiat and ancestra}<\/p>\n
pzoperty bearing house No.23 has been lei; out by Gafurkhan<\/p>\n
3.3<\/p>\n
Kaciarkhan Soudagar to defendants 14 and    <\/p>\n
and Gafarkhan Kadarkhan Souti.\u00e9iga1’\u00ab Qiit of <\/p>\n
derived from the ancestral propertieeiiagid outthe <\/p>\n
derived from the shoe aisedhi fort   of<\/p>\n
maintaining the family,’ He wee.” sorizeameunt after
\nmeeting the expenses   “said savings were
\nutilised for the  vv’V1i’:i’o1::e:’ties bearing
\nhouse Noe}: \u00a7i’r;t__   bearing Nos.48<\/p>\n
anci   of .\u00e9eco;;idfwife–eiefeI;dant No.1 and<\/p>\n
the   “By Gafurkhan Kaciarkhan<\/p>\n
Soudagai’*Q_utt of  and also with the assistance of<\/p>\n
the ,3;-tea-.stra1  have been described in scheduie-B<\/p>\n
it  (if   though the properties bearing house N0s.48<\/p>\n
   in the name of the \ufb01rst ctefendant, the<\/p>\n
seme have’ tieen purchased by Gafurkhan Kadarkhan<\/p>\n
  out of his own money. At the relevant time,
\n  No.1 had no income to acquire the pmperties and<\/p>\n
   _,,_’i7F~;aS incapable of purchasing any of the properties as he bag.<\/p>\n
:10 independent eeurce of income. It is further averrecl that<\/p>\n
after ptirchase of the properties Gafurkhan Kadarkhan. let<\/p>\n
5;’,\/3<\/p>\n
EL,<\/p>\n
14<\/span><\/p>\n
out house No.61 to diffexexzt tenants and at pliesenis <\/p>\n
is in the occupation \u00absf defenciantsw1:’.2.   b j <\/p>\n
Rs.?’O\/~ and Rs.3S\/- per naonth  <\/p>\n
out property beari\ufb01g house’Ne’;*\u00e98 \u00a3oAdi\ufb02’eren%v-Vteiiekiite  at V<\/p>\n
present the same is  the  of .tlefet:td:;3,?;1ts 15 and
\n16 respeetiveiy.    house No.61 to
\ndifferent tenants. and  of defendant
\nNo.18.   was recovering the
\nrent \ufb01mtn   properties as we}! as
\nthe    the tenants. The rent
\nreceived’  the  utilised for the purpose of<\/p>\n
 ttte’   also to acquixe the properties.<\/p>\n
  Theeefeie,  tlzetttietiebers of the family used. to enjoy the<\/p>\n
   ‘ It is f11rther averted that Gafurkhan<\/p>\n
i{a\u00a2}’erk12.3iit:’E’.VSeudagar had \ufb01ied O.S.No.159\/1977 against<\/p>\n
 Mohairgrtied Yusuf Makmmsaheb soudagar for the relief of<\/p>\n
A “re performance and in the alternative for the re\ufb01lnd of<\/p>\n
t the adva;:1ee’money’. The said suit was partlyu decreed on<\/p>\n
u 26.9.84 and enter was passed for refund of money of<\/p>\n
Rs.14~,OG(}\/- with appropriate costs and interest at 6% per<\/p>\n
i,~5>.\n<\/p>\n
15<\/span><\/p>\n
annum. Gafurkhan Kadarkhan Soudagar fxlfiii  <\/p>\n
Petition No.2(}8\/198′? for Iecovery\u00bbA0f._the  \u00e9L14:’1_QjuI3f\u00a3 V<\/p>\n
against the judgment debtors  m’:\n<\/p>\n
considcratioxl in the said ex\u00e9c\ufb01\ufb01on pefjtian.  c\u00e9ieathv . L’<\/p>\n
of the decree ho1\ufb01e;’\u00bbGa\ufb011r}{;ii;\u00a7”\u00a7z\u00a7__  VAvVv\u00a73uda,gar,
\npiamtiifs and defend&1v1it..\u00a7”bci;%1g  cjatitied to receive
\nthe decmetal  ‘Vstheir legitimate
\nsham. it is   defendants 1 to
\n11 used tc;   house: bearing No.82
\nat Mai\u00a7;ct._   Thereafter due to quaxtrels
\nbemee\ufb01’ t.1\u00a7_e  defendant No.1, Gafurkhan<\/p>\n
   .askcd pia1’11ti\ufb02’ No.1 to reside along<\/p>\n
   to avoid any further bikering in the famiiy<\/p>\n
I    for the convenience, of the family<\/p>\n
staIite\u20aci.__vi’\u00e9:$ui\u20aciiixg in H.No.}}3, camp-Bclgaum, Whereas the<\/p>\n
 dgfetz\u00e9a\ufb01ts 1 to 11 am useci to visit the house wherein his<\/p>\n
  was residing along with he}: chikiren. In trhe: month<\/p>\n
   July, 1989 Gaflzrkhan Soudagar lost his sense due to<\/p>\n
brain tumor an\u00e9 was advised to visit Bombay Hospital for<\/p>\n
the purpose of hcaith check-up. Accordingly, he was taken to<\/p>\n
‘~\\;;..i_,,,%’\u00e9 ,<\/p>\n
Bombay hospitai in the month of October,  <\/p>\n
was detected that he was su\ufb01’ering”frem  V’ ‘<\/p>\n
Juiy 1989 onwards Gafurkhan   <\/p>\n
sense due to brain tumor  he \u00a5A:5’1″eaL13e<fib,  <\/p>\n
expired on 22.12.1989, The r;1ece%\u00a7iseci'V\u00a312as Haiizy will, as
\nsuch succession ca\ufb01e'  'Ab?  22.12.89 when
\nGafurkhan s0gd.agar  ieyjely onwards, late
\n  coma and had lest
\nhis  'i 'aking undue advantage
\nof   Kadarkhan Soudagar, it is
\nrevea}ee1"V.}::3:ye~ \u00a7he= the recoxds that the sixth<\/p>\n
defexidant 1ias "\\'vit}:v1'drawn amount from the accoums<\/p>\n
 '   uaeee of Gafurkhan Kaclarkhan soudagar for<\/p>\n
 1sV.T'Vlj.e\u00a2b1e for the accounts. Gafurkhan iiadarkhan<\/p>\n
Seucie13gar :iever executed any power of attrorney in favour of<\/p>\n
 .A e1efeed.a:nt No.6 for the purpose of Withdrawing any money to<\/p>\n
" Ierge extent from his accounts. Qefendant No.6 has illegaly<\/p>\n
and "zmlawfuliy withdrawn his amount {mm the accounts of<\/p>\n
the deceased by misrepresenting the facts and therey<\/p>\n
misappmprmted ihe amount. Defendants 19 to 22 failed to<\/p>\n
g;,\\,9g.\n<\/p>\n
eonsi\ufb01er the pax\ufb01eulars of w the money’7\u00ab.i_.1lega113% and <\/p>\n
unlawfully Withdrawn by the-‘ eixth\ufb02  ‘ <\/p>\n
Kasmataka Bank, Kadoikar   <\/p>\n
further averned that  de;fen.daz3.;Es”v_:1 T], ‘ have <\/p>\n
succeeded to the prope\ufb01y of  Soddagrax-giesc\ufb01bed<\/p>\n
in Schedu1e~A to E and  entif_1ed&,vto as prayed in the
\npiaint refersred toetxove,-“”  e\n<\/p>\n
4.   included by way of
\namendmeii\ufb01e  f1iataV.”‘Gafe:’*1&}i2;.1n Soudagar purchased
\nthe pm\ufb01rerties  38 and 63 in the name of<\/p>\n
his sister   lbrahxm saheb Bombewale of<\/p>\n
  and tI 1e”-‘said properties were in posseseion anti<\/p>\n
  ‘Venjo’3}e2e_et;e.eef Ga\ufb01xrkhan Kadarkhan Soudagaz: and he<\/p>\n
  said properties held by the tenants even<\/p>\n
%  _ though em<\/p>\n
seine were purchased in the name of his sister.<\/p>\n
Later Sitxaeifohaxabi expired leaving behind her legal heirs<\/p>\n
   heirs entered azi agreement on 7.5.1952 admitting<\/p>\n
  even though said properties were standing in the name<\/p>\n
.4 their mother-\u00bbJohezabi the same were heid and managed<\/p>\n
by Gafurkhan Kadarkhan Soudagar so as to con\ufb01rm the pre-<\/p>\n
\\,t-J’~<\/p>\n
existing right over the said property. It is aiso :a’ve;j1fe_\u00a71 <\/p>\n
likewise the property bearing house No.48 of.’ <\/p>\n
was owned by Szti.Naraya11a Bhofeanoaaew<\/p>\n
imie an advance agreement  sa1e”W:if.h sm;;.;q1:a:abi;\u00ab ‘*rhe–.,<\/p>\n
said sale consideration paid  No;=1  ‘\ufb01ne said V’<\/p>\n
property was purchased t1qe”‘i1aii;je of._\u00a7’.>mt.JoI3ai*abi under
\nmgistere\ufb01 deed of sale  the said sale<\/p>\n
c:::)I1si;:1eI’at:ioI1_..:-*;=i1\u00a5o:s.1:z1’i: ii\u00e9ae ‘   No. 1. Therefore,-<\/p>\n
after ,tl1e~ 1;\u00a7:.*f  legal heirs executed
\nagree1:ee.n*c of “””\/”.’_2″.i32_ in the name of the first
\nplainti\ufb02’   the sale consideration amount<\/p>\n
Waeifiaiii byV.’I1erVv__ve1;ile purchasing the pmperty hearing<\/p>\n
\u00bbA l::V1’c”2.xz_V$e.VbvAI’i;o.~’~!\u00a2:&:V3:~–.Therefore, ai} along the said propeI1.y &&<\/p>\n
  eo\u00e9eession and enjoyment of the plaintiff No.1<\/p>\n
an\u00a7i”her:I1’1;”e.band. After the death of Joharabi, Gafurkhan<\/p>\n
V.    got transferred properties bearing house Nos.3′?’,<\/p>\n
 63 and 48 of camp~Beigaum to the extent of 5\/731<\/p>\n
   endivided share in the name of his second wife~S1:nt.Jajnabi<\/p>\n
for a sum of Rs.3,00{)\/- under a registred deed dated<\/p>\n
29.11.1955. The balance saie eonsicleratien amount of<\/p>\n
\\3,\\j.?s .\n<\/p>\n
19<\/span><\/p>\n
Rs.3,00(}\/- was paid by plainti\ufb01’ No.1 in the preseneefsf _<\/p>\n
sub–~Registra:r at Belgaum to the sellers.   <\/p>\n
partition amongst the legal heirs  Hgltesz\ufb01al\ufb01i\u00bb <\/p>\n
new bea\ufb02ng house Nes.3′?’ and  caAt1:<1_e"to be   <\/p>\n
share of Ismailshaikh  the  bearing
\nhouse Nos.48 and 68.     Abdul
\nGafurkhan Soudagar eveatnt\u00e9 sale in respect
\nof the aforesaid    in the name of
\nthe first   was got execute\u00e9. in
\nthe Raise  dete\ufb01datnt but the considera\ufb01oa was
\npaid by  uthe said pmpertzies were under<\/p>\n
the tltaixaget\ufb01e\ufb02t. V"Ga;f\ufb01=.1rkhan Kadarkhan Sou\u00e9agar. Thus,<\/p>\n
 bearing house Nos.48 and 63 are the<\/p>\n
1  and not the exclusive properties of \ufb01rst<\/p>\n
def\u20aci1d9I\u00a7t.' –  A<\/p>\n
2 .. AA  \ufb01efcndanm 1 and 6 \ufb01led written statement averting<\/p>\n
—   suit of the galainfi\ufb01s is faisc and vexatious, contmxy trc<\/p>\n
”  and \u00e9enied the averments maiie in the plaint. It was<\/p>\n
\u00ab aveireti that scheduie\ufb01 properties bearing house N0s.48<\/p>\n
and 63 ncxmtioned and schedule B annexed to the plaint are<\/p>\n
\\\u00a7~\/3<\/p>\n
20<\/span><\/p>\n
purchased by the first defendant and plain\ufb01\ufb01 <\/p>\n
ciaim to scheduled?\u00bb properties on the groun\u00e9 1 V’<\/p>\n
deed in favour of defendant No.1 is henemi  4.’reaI, Vt<\/p>\n
owner of the pmperty was Ga\ufb01xrkhaiix  its <\/p>\n
averreci that under Section %~\u00bb\u00a7t._v”<')'f..VtheA'\u00a31enam\u00a7Lbv.ft'ts\u00a711eac\ufb01on " L'<\/p>\n
(Pm}1ibi.t:ion} Act, 1988 119 suit, ela\u00a7;'n.oi*..ac\ufb01ei1' 'tO,.'CI1Af;}ICC any
\ntight in respect of   suit is<\/p>\n
not maintainable invzespeet'\u00bbof'\ufb01:V1e   He {ienied<\/p>\n
the aV\u20ac'iZ\u00a7\u20acIi'\u00a7\u00a3$'::   "pa1*a\u00a57'V'V*ti:1at after meeting the
\nexpense\u00e9i ofttze   "ufae keeping some amount in<\/p>\n
deposit. "\u00a7'1ViVefg_ alsoV' de\ufb01iecl\ufb02ghe averments made that house<\/p>\n
_. Nos34Q   "situated in Market Street, Belgamzn was<\/p>\n
  Soudagar from the savings and<\/p>\n
   Vaheeistance of the ancestral properties. it is<\/p>\n
V . \ufb01uther  that at the time of marriage of defendant<\/p>\n
  Gafurkhan Soudagar she was given substantial<\/p>\n
 g\u00a2td"ofnamant$ and also other jewellery. Defendant No.1 fer<\/p>\n
Vt  " plitehase of preperties mentioned in scheduie-B to the plaint<\/p>\n
" s0l(i_ti1e gol\u00e9 ornaments threugh her husband and<\/p>\n
purchased schedule-B properties. it is false  ; that<\/p>\n
gm, 9:\n<\/p>\n
“‘x}”;”\\.\u00bb;\u00a7 .\n<\/p>\n
22<\/span><\/p>\n
cc3I3.strt1ct first 1100:’ over the ground floor and    <\/p>\n
\ufb01xed deposit mentioned at Sy.No.:3″Ais”t:rA_b’e  ifoz\u00e9l<\/p>\n
construction of first \ufb02oor over  <\/p>\n
the amount of \ufb01xed dep\ufb02sit \ufb012\u20ac%.3i3.!i\u20ac>ne\u00a3i   “‘(3; was <\/p>\n
utihzed by the sixth defe;1da1:;t”fee;_ediist;”uct}id1:-of~\u00a3i:r’st \ufb02oor.
\nIt is further averreci  entitled to any
\nshare in the   4, 6 and 8
\nmentioned  i”(3__’V same is utilised for
\npayme;:te…of”   V jihe deceased-Gufarkhan.
\nand  for   family property and the suit
\nof the ‘i\ufb01  the said items of property at<\/p>\n
S1. 4, 6   ere liable te be dismissed as the same<\/p>\n
 is.;;\u00a7oz  Law. it is further averred that in View of the<\/p>\n
  defendants 3 to 11 have spent<\/p>\n
Rs’.25,0__\u20ac){);.–:”‘fo1* funerai expenses of the deceased and also<\/p>\n
   f0rs_1ast*ri.tes and rituals. The pigmy amount at S1.No.1 and 2<\/p>\n
”  amount stanziing in the name of Gufarkhan<\/p>\n
  ….;\u00a31enti0ned at S.Nc.:.’7 of schedule ‘\u00a31’ annexe\u00e9 to the plaint,<\/p>\n
first defendant is entitles to 1\/ 16\u00a2 shale and the defendants
\n2 to 11 are join\ufb01y entitled to 49\/ 30 sham. It is further<\/p>\n
\\9\u00ab\u00a7*-\n<\/p>\n
23<\/span>
\naverted that it is true that Gufarkhan izlherried properties<\/p>\n
bearing H.Nos.6l and 82 both situated in MarketV–‘sueet,<\/p>\n
Camp Belgaum and i~I.No.23 situated in <\/p>\n
camp, Beigaum. Gufarkhan had a brothg\u00e9g  VV <\/p>\n
Mohazrzmed Khan and Gufarkhan <\/p>\n
separate possession of his share    <\/p>\n
High Court. During the  ;\u00a7em1_ene}?”‘ 91″‘  <\/p>\n
Mohammad Khan died.__ G11farl;h\u00e9i;’1.go’t_Vho:1.$e’i\\Fos.H\u20ac\u00a7:} and 32
\nand both situated at  and H.No.25<\/p>\n
Madxaeg  Gufarkhan had taken
\npremises’   eituated in High street camp.<\/p>\n
Belga\u00a7i:m~.and  A shop subsequently under the name<\/p>\n
  ei’\u00ab\u00ab._Roya1 Shoe Mart. Subsecfuen\ufb02y, for better<\/p>\n
 to Grampatgalli and to Ramdevgajli,<\/p>\n
}3elgaum”W}::e’re he started a shop under the name and style<\/p>\n
 ‘cf fNo\u00a71e–~Shoe Mart’. it is further averred that on the expiry<\/p>\n
    period of ten years menztioned in partnership deed,<\/p>\n
VA   .,pz:–;rtnersi1i;9 should disselve. It is \ufb01lrther averted that<\/p>\n
VV defendant N06 had came of age and Gufarkhan Wante\u00e9 {(3<\/p>\n
settle defendant No.6 in his life and therefore Gufarkhaxz<\/p>\n
\\;;n\u00bb.\u00a3<\/p>\n
25<\/span><\/p>\n
Soudagar succession opened in respect of the said  <\/p>\n
Defendants 1 to 11 011 the death of  .\n<\/p>\n
and ate entitled to 59\/80  the “‘ ‘V<\/p>\n
preperties and sought for said sh\ufb01xje 1733:   ‘bV{:j’E.1_IIK’3.3”<\/p>\n
by paying court fee.\n<\/p>\n
3″. Having regard zit; theeabueie’}\u00a7iIeadin\ufb01S;”?he”Vfol1owing
\nissues were framed:\n<\/p>\n
1. Whe\ufb02fler   the properties<\/p>\n
shoWnVvdaf’t\u00a3)”‘E\u00abVVare  deceased Gafurkhan as
\nalleged’? : d V . ‘ V\n<\/p>\n
2. u’d’W11e1;1.;1e;~  prove that the suit<\/p>\n
  v”II1CIL’1’fi'(3I3i_3(1′.vi11 scl1ed1}Je–B of the plaint were<\/p>\n
 \u00abdeceased Ga\ufb01nkhan Soudagar in the name of<\/p>\n
.?l3.”.\u00a7t;  from his savings and also with the income<\/p>\n
j 5:”   properties?\n<\/p>\n
AA  Whether the \ufb01rst defendant proves that the<\/p>\n
d  ciaim of plain\ufb01\ufb01s in respect of B schedule properties is<\/p>\n
‘4  under Sec\ufb01 of the Benami Transac\ufb01ons (Prohibition<\/p>\n
Act 1988 as contended?\n<\/p>\n
26<\/span><\/p>\n
4. Whether the defendants 1 and 6 pI’Q$.?f3_’ ‘<\/p>\n
amount shown at S.No. 1 of ‘C’ schedule has   <\/p>\n
improvement of H.Ne:>.82 as contenc2\u00e9d”‘?”‘ \u00ab \u00a2_ <\/p>\n
5. Whether the deferici-ants  V6  \ufb02fic <\/p>\n
amounts shown at S}.No.3,4,6’vL4a.#\u00a7\u00e9 8 of ‘(3._vv$(:i1cc\u00a5\u00a7;11e have<\/p>\n
been utilised towards  late Ga\ufb01zrkhan’?<\/p>\n
6. Whegiicr  pi”os.r’F.,:’ ‘that they have<\/p>\n
spent  “‘tLii3;*2\u00a7rcis  expenses of late
\nGafurklzian:  are liable to coxttxibutc to<\/p>\n
the extent <V3 f=1:11cirV   \u00e9ontcnded?<\/p>\n
.,   defendant No.6 pmve that late<\/p>\n
  the entire shop including his tenancy<\/p>\n
 his favour as contended?\n<\/p>\n
   Whsther the plaintiffs plmve that late<\/p>\n
-‘   had 25% share in pro\ufb01t anti iosses in the \ufb01rm<\/p>\n
j  ‘Is\ufb01bWn at schedu1c–D as aiieged?<\/p>\n
9. Whether the defendant N<:;s.1 and 6 are liable for<\/p>\n
account?\n<\/p>\n
\\v;.,}<\/p>\n
27<\/span><\/p>\n
10. Whether the court fee paid  ” V <\/p>\n
correct?\n<\/p>\n
11. Whether the  entitl\u00e9\ufb02   <\/p>\n
respective share in suit pmpertieef’ _<\/p>\n
12. To What ordei”oi”dee\u00a7ee’?’  V<\/p>\n
8. On behalf of   No.2 was
\nexamined    P33. On behalf
\nof the  Soudagar defendant
\nNo.8   2 and Jafa1’beig.:::. Inamdar was
\nexaeainec1A’osp4DWto D18 Wen: got marked. The<\/p>\n
trial com”;  eo\u00e9ieidexing the contention of the ieamed<\/p>\n
    fovz’:””‘{A11e parties and appreciating the oral<\/p>\n
 adduced by the pa.rt1e’ 5 before it,<\/p>\n
by  16.6.2003 anewered the above issues as<\/p>\n
 ‘\u00ab\u00ab___foHoWs: ”  3<\/p>\n
 ‘._p_’fA’;\u20ac;s11e No.1: The plaintiffs have proved that the
\ndeceased has left behind the pmper\ufb01es mentioned in
\nA, I) and E schedule properties and properties
\nmentioned at S1.Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 8 in C sehe\u00e9ule.<\/p>\n
Issue No.2: In the negative.\n<\/p>\n
\\:–~9><\/p>\n
28<\/span><\/p>\n
issue N03: In the nega\ufb01ve.\n<\/p>\n
issue NO.4 : Does not survive for consideration.
\nissue No.5: in the negative. t
\nIssue No.6: In the negative.\n<\/p>\n
Issue No.7: In the negative.\n<\/p>\n
Issue No.8: In the a\ufb02irmafive.\n<\/p>\n
Issue No.9:fn the a\ufb01rmative.\n<\/p>\n
Issue No. 10: In the af\ufb01xmatjve. \u00ab<\/p>\n
issue No.1 1: As per   .\n<\/p>\n
Issue No.12: As per the <\/p>\n
and accordingly decreedtne’ ‘siiit  in part by<\/p>\n
declaring  .1 and defendant No.1 are
\nen\ufb01\ufb02ed At’o__ 41,! 16\u00a2?’  and piainti\ufb01is prayer for<\/p>\n
pm\ufb01fien cf tne  eemperties is rejected. Defendants<\/p>\n
. t 1   iiie \u00e9iitjected Vtettxender the accounts for the amounts<\/p>\n
 account of the deceased menionted at<\/p>\n
 1:116 suit C schedule and both the parties are<\/p>\n
 ‘.._'”d.i1″ected’  render the accounts of rents and pro\ufb01ts if any<\/p>\n
   by them from the above mentioned pmpertiestfor<\/p>\n
 …” “”adjfa2stment of the rents and pro\ufb01ts in accordance with their<\/p>\n
\ufb02’vsha1’e and partition of the immovable properties shall be<\/p>\n
e\ufb02eeted by the Court Commissioner to be appointed as per<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
29<\/span><\/p>\n
the provisions contained in Section 54 of
\naggrieved by the above said judg*mez:t\u00abd;_ate&1.,
\n16.6.2003 passed by the trial <\/p>\n
this appeal and cmss objecti0i:_:is~…\ufb011edAb;: _defeiiidAat”1if\u00a3’s?”‘1V 3:6 1} ” L’<\/p>\n
in the suit.\n<\/p>\n
9. We have 11ea1vwdu<\/p>\n
30<\/span><\/p>\n
‘,%:.._e\u00e9’ ‘ $9.1″ “-  ‘ <\/p>\n
.’u
\na<\/p>\n
share \u00a311 the said properties is }{1S’\u00a3LOI’. jcalls\u00e9   <\/p>\n
interference in this appeai?’  A <\/p>\n
2. Whethtar the  the <\/p>\n
on issue Nos. .{,4,5,6 “and 31” is  or ca\ufb02s<\/p>\n
for interferenc\u00e9  <\/p>\n
3. Whe\u00a711\u20acfm \u00a3.he    court that the
\n Ii\ufb01fus\u00e9 No\u00a7.63 and 48 item<\/p>\n
 M ‘..iVIV1VVVI\u00a7?~’v4schcdu}e property is the
\n  and plaintiffs are not
\n_ eiiifitltgd   in the schedule property is<\/p>\n
 3 _:]T.17ii’\u00a7)1?i.f.i\u00a2fC3 ;{V)’I”‘a’\u00a3.*c”.i1lVS for interference in this appeal?<\/p>\n
V   the \ufb01nding of the tI’ia\u00a3 court wgax\ufb02ing
\nV___vs1;3\u00a3i*eA\u00e9a\ufb02otted to the plainti\ufb01\ufb01 and the defendants is
\nz jiisti\ufb01\ufb01tti or calls far iI1tCI’f\u20ac3I’C}1CC in this appeal\ufb01<\/p>\n
t<\/p>\n
V’ * ._  What Qrcler?\n<\/p>\n
    we answer the above wants as foliowsz<\/p>\n
Point No.1: The finding of the trial court is justi\ufb01ed<\/p>\n
and daes not cal} for interferezzce in this appeal.<\/p>\n
._\\-A ;:-3’_,\\5’_:M_H_\\L M , \\’\\a:-uF;;’*.<\/p>\n
31<\/span><\/p>\n
mm No.2; The \ufb01nding of the ma; cour_t:”i:3:<\/p>\n
and d{)t’:2S not cal} for intetfetttnce in this   V <\/p>\n
Point No.3: The \ufb01nding of gig:  %:9111v.*t* is<\/p>\n
and does not caii for i11teIfere1:+ce in    1<\/p>\n
Point No.4: The f1I1ding”‘cf\ufb01.i;11e   jttstified<\/p>\n
and class not call .   in  appeal.\n<\/p>\n
Point No.5: in_vievt%  1, is 4, the
\n of the g;r;a1_ VVf<tt:fittterfcmnce in this
\nappeal for the      V
\n1}; '~.}%:()IN;FS  J:Thcsc yoints are consis\u00e9ered
\ntog\u00a2t\u00a71er    itztemonnected and to avoid
\nV.   is; clettttttxtnm the perusa} of the pleadings ans}
\n  by the par\ufb01as before the trial court<\/p>\n
coA1x.sz.g,)x'\u00a7.s;E3:1g_Vt' evidence of PW1-fomth plain\ufb01ff, SW. 1-<\/p>\n
 No.8 that there is no dispute among the gaarties<\/p>\n
Vt   tha fact that Gafurkhan Kadarkhan Souciagar was<\/p>\n
  __t1:\u00a7c pmpasitus and he died due to ailmexxt on 22.11.99 a\ufb01er<\/p>\n
 tn'-zatmcnt. It is Well settled that in Mohammedan law the<\/p>\n
parties wouid be entitietd to Share only after the death of the
\n\\9J\\<\/p>\n
32<\/span><\/p>\n
propositus and the question of ancestral and 1 ”<\/p>\n
pmperty or joint family properties de”i}ot.a:.\u00a7:lt3ly_.vl.tc:$ lauci, <\/p>\n
the parties have a \ufb01xed share   <\/p>\n
the deceased in accordance With_?.t.’1e Mt:$h.amI1;1etlai:;Vl;aw.”:it is ” V<\/p>\n
the contention of the pla5.t_1.tift’s’V.tt1;tt”_\u00a7:el:erlu1e\u00e94A,B,C:D and E
\nproperties are the  ll _ by Gafurkhan
\nS-audagar    11 are entitled
\nto their  law in the said
\nproperties.  eeggltetntion of defendants tl1at
\npmpefty  H.Ns.63 anti 48 and
\nitem No.C3e..ef tlte   are in the name of<\/p>\n
S\u20acivC(lt.1’dx”\u00e9’*?if\u20ac ef  Kadarkhan Sotzdagar and the<\/p>\n
\u00bb “net entitled to shame in the said properties. It is<\/p>\n
   of the defendants that Gafurkhan<\/p>\n
  not have 25% share it} the Show mart as<\/p>\n
  ‘;;1v.r_e;’z*etl” ‘by the plaintiffs and the said pmperty has been<\/p>\n
 oraliy along with stock and trade in favour of sixth<\/p>\n
l V’ ” “defendant and wherefore, the plaintiffs are not emitted to<\/p>\n
share in the said property also.\n<\/p>\n
\\9J><\/p>\n
33<\/span><\/p>\n
13. In order to substantiate the conterxigioniid ~<\/p>\n
panics, p1ainti\ufb01’ No.2-Sikandarkhan u”<\/p>\n
and he has got marked docuineidis   <\/p>\n
substantiate the contention  defendaniisd; f;ie.fenri{ant -. V L’<\/p>\n
No.8 has been examined as \ufb01e lies
\nDW2 reganding the   man; who is not
\na party to the suitand  $11) 18. It is clear
\nfxom the     reiterated the
\navexmente     stated that plain\ufb01ffs
\nare en\ufb01diedv   .s{d:;edu1e properties described
\nin A to ‘ofdfhe  Iias got marked the documents<\/p>\n
Exs.I\u00a71″to  V\u00e9oszipgoertdtdof his contention. It is eiicited in<\/p>\n
 ‘med. of PW. 3. that his grandfather’s name<\/p>\n
 e’2×2*e.s~ Kadarkhan Soudagar. He had two wives and<\/p>\n
one’–..__\u20ac1s1_13.gt:1;\u00a3e1*\u00a7 Mohammedkhan was his eidest son.<\/p>\n
 was his second son and Zoharabi was his<\/p>\n
   and his grandfather had held house properties<\/p>\n
   I\\Eos.6, 82, 60 and 84 at Marketstreet camp, Bvelgaum<\/p>\n
 and house properties at No.23 Khanapur Road and his<\/p>\n
grandfather was tanning the busi\ufb02ess of Royal Shoe Mart<\/p>\n
‘\\9~o5’><\/p>\n
34<\/span><\/p>\n
and his gransrather died somewhere in 1948 to 19;:\u00e9bzane<\/p>\n
thereafter in the partition his une1e~Mo11am1ne;i~~–K};s__i_1’Weiss<\/p>\n
given. to his share house Nos.6O and 62 <\/span><\/p>\n
Camp Belgaum and his father ..3:\u00e9as <\/p>\n
Nos.82, 84 of Marketstzeet and  <\/p>\n
‘mad and also shoe business”v;s1:;d hjs”‘fs_the\u00a7i= 1\u00abi\u00e9;d’VV started V’<\/p>\n
residing separately ,3 e\u00e9iuthef\u00e9iepesed that
\nshe was assisting his  He was also<\/p>\n
doing shoe buses;-ess ‘at;  ‘He was alone in<\/p>\n
eanyiiieg en …_1__1s3der the name and style ‘Rpyal
\nShoe M:;.11::%’a:.  It is further elicited in para-21<\/p>\n
of his *c;oss;exa1 I1i’1\u00a7ati\u00a3>n ‘that it is not true to suggest that<\/p>\n
 heviise   of marketstreet are standing in the<\/p>\n
   :’\ufb01 fsf.cI,efendant. He has veri\ufb01ed the GLR extract of<\/p>\n
these  Even now, these houses are standing in the<\/p>\n
 nanae .’\u00a3?.e}1a1’abi. Zoharabi is his father’s younger sister. He<\/p>\n
 fjmuduced GLR extract of those houses. It is true that the<\/p>\n
   deeds in respect of houses 48 and 63 are sfanding in<\/p>\n
the name of fins: defendant. it is hue that Ex\ufb01etition 35\/95<\/p>\n
is stiii pending. The said execution petition was for recovery<\/p>\n
\\3~\\}>-\n<\/p>\n
35<\/span><\/p>\n
of Rs.14,000\/- by defendants 1 to 11 and
\nrecovered under the said executzicung  ‘
\nhis cross-exam1n’ ation that it is \ufb01e; tie_iie'[vtoTT’sn_A g’g.est, <\/p>\n
brother–I1iyas was with hisV\u00bb{f\u00a3 \ufb01:her aii”  sjiiiyas” V<\/p>\n
was knowing about tee vhexyas eftendin\u00e9 more on
\nhis father and since V I\ufb01gres,  his father in
\nMumbai also a.i;nv th\u00a2..vvj;e1iS\u00a7\ufb01; iixiet attend to his
\ncollege. it   eef\u00e9\ufb01dants 1 to 11 have
\nmet an   father; It is further
\ne\ufb01citeti  that he was not personaliy
\npresen_t w1_1en  22 executed. It is not true to<\/p>\n
suggcet   ‘father teas looking a\ufb02er entire transaction<\/p>\n
 \u00ab.  \ufb02f    to note the same in the notebook.<\/p>\n
 _Ii: to _ieuggest that he house Nos.48 and 63 were<\/p>\n
ekclesive  of fust defendant.\n<\/p>\n
 ‘A  1934} DW.1-Ilyas Ga\ufb01xrkhan Soudagar ‘is defendant
\n   the suit and he has reiterated the avennents made in
\n  “the _w:\u20acit%:e13t statement in his exaztnination in chief. He has<\/p>\n
stated in para-6 of the examination in chief that house No.63<\/p>\n
au\u00e9 48 described in Schedule-B are standing in the name of<\/p>\n
\\);J*<\/p>\n
36<\/span>
\nhis mother. His grandfather i.e. mothefs father had given<\/p>\n
goid ornaments to his mother and by selling T1101?-‘_> gold<\/p>\n
omaments his mother purchaseci those two l10i1\u00bb\u00a73e–sf.’._ His<\/p>\n
name was Abduirehman Shaikh. He had
\nposition. House No.63 consists of t
\nis in possession of a tenant and  <\/p>\n
chilciren of pmmee No.3\u00abHasa_Vint”keaha\ufb01 is neiv.:  His”?<\/p>\n
mother alloed them tofstay  ivithotlt payment<\/p>\n
0f rent. House No.48 c\u00e9aeiste  In the ground<\/p>\n
\ufb02oor there  \ufb01rs’: \ufb02oor his elder sister–F’ajza
\nMustaqezhzeerl (dare;-1fda\u00a7i1:– term; is residing. His mother is<\/p>\n
collectiilg f\ufb01\ufb01f  tlitaf: tenants of H.No.48. it is not true-to<\/p>\n
 ”  father had purchased these two houses<\/p>\n
A  fx’am’tOt1tf<}f  income in the name of his mother and it<\/p>\n
is met t;:ue.vtAteAtsuggest that his father had incudcted tenants<\/p>\n
  these: houses. He has further eieposed in his cross-
\nV 'x,exa.%\u00a7ination that so far as A schednie pmperty, they have<\/p>\n
 __;rfever xefused the plam\ufb01\ufb01s to give their share. The house<\/p>\n
groperty situated at Bha\u00e9kalgalli was purchased by his<\/p>\n
father in the name of p]ainti\ufb01' No.3-Hasankahan. At that<\/p>\n
\\\u00a7\u00bb\\.3\\<\/p>\n
37<\/span><\/p>\n
time Hasankahan was studying in 8* or 93*   <\/p>\n
income from any source. Pie hadeenat\u00e9 aftag xiniii\u00e9etiit. ‘ j <\/p>\n
the time when the said house    <\/p>\n
marked documents Exs.{)1  Ifis elieikgi ‘\u00a7.:ross–* V<\/p>\n
examination that his da:e%_’\u00a7ifA-\u00bb,:t;im; \ufb01g “\u00ab2Q,1251954. He
\ncompietcd his edues\ufb01ci\ufb01z   His marriage took
\nplace on 26.10.. 1 997.   io 11 have given
\ninstructions    statement. The
\ngeneologr    vcorrect. Gafurkhan was
\ndealing’  He sag rich by birth. He had
\nea1’i1ecizA”gp<i<1  business also. It is further<\/p>\n
elicited  cities iiotvknow as to whether his father was<\/p>\n
.- \u00ab.   011 iee-itiziier business. It is true that Kadarkhan<\/p>\n
  iheii   had a shop in martket street,<\/p>\n
 It is business dealing with ieather articries. it<\/p>\n
 is true ,t1iat during 195869 Gafurkhan had started a shop in<\/p>\n
":i:V'_Grsis[s_patga}\ufb01, carrying on business in ieather arficies. It<\/p>\n
v\u00e9\u00e9as a rented premises and the business was run by<\/p>\n
Gafurkhan in the said premises for 15 t9 18 years. It was his<\/p>\n
proprietary concern. Later, he shifted his business ta<\/p>\n
\\9\u00ab\u00a7*<\/p>\n
40<\/span><\/p>\n
gandfather had advanced money to Jainabi. it is not true to<\/p>\n
suggest that his maternal gra11dfathe1* had no capaei\u00a7y*e’.f’;\u00a7je;9ay<\/p>\n
such amount during 1955 and the <\/p>\n
stantiing the name of Jainabi were  ‘4 u <\/p>\n
and he was collecting rent from <\/p>\n
eiicited in his cr0ss~exami;1atim; thafit is notefiige itoz s’1i’g5g”e~.=;f’p<\/p>\n
that his mother never freated pmpefiies be; separate
\nproperties from the V \ufb01ate   date of
\ndepesition, He did nofg  about non–\n<\/p>\n
payment __of; AV de\u00bbf\u00a3:n_(1a11’ts 12 to 18. He had made
\nenquiry?’  shown in C schedule. These<\/p>\n
depgjsitg weeee-iyitlgx  name of his father-Gafurkhan and<\/p>\n
 .,  is  of these deposits. He has denie\u00e9<\/p>\n
 :t1<:e V$ufg{ge$i\u00a7_C\u00a7I;V'.:~\ufb011at p1aiz1ti\ufb01's are requesting them ta effect<\/p>\n
1:A)a-3.ftitig;:I;~  the family properties and to \ufb01lmish accounts.<\/p>\n
 DW.2-Jafarbeg Yusuf Beg inamdar has deposed<\/p>\n
  evidence that he knows defendant No.{S–imi:i;azkhan<\/p>\n
u wazad piainti\ufb02' No.3–Hasar2kha11. He started his business<\/p>\n
during F973, since 1975 he has got aequaintence with said
\nHasankhan and imtiazkhan. During 1995 they entered into<\/p>\n
WV?\u00bb<\/p>\n
4i<\/p>\n
comyromise. The fanlily has get presgaerty at <\/p>\n
Camp. 111 the eomymmise it was agreed that  };\u00a3a1a'iu <\/p>\n
to vacate the tenants of    -oieft<\/p>\n
possessien 01' the same to   <\/p>\n
agreed that the property   given to
\nthemother of    in his
\npzesence. At that time eee'  Shaikh, Waheed
\nMtsnra\ufb01abatii,  :were also present.<\/p>\n
After ‘2J\\<\/p>\n
42<\/span><\/p>\n
Hasankban. Hasankhan died about \ufb01ve years–‘..e;’go  <\/p>\n
examined on 27.3.2003). He was aisO’–ea11j{‘iz1g;”1\ufb0133 aleil’? *<"?\u00b0.I[VI1""v=-T   for"?<\/p>\n
settlement for a peri0<;1.of  18. He
\ncannot remember the   ()_f_\ufb01 u given by given
\nby Hasankhan I decision as
\nto how the     per the agreement,
\ncrs.No_.4\u00a7ev~;eVe-    V: \ufb01om the tenants.
\nLikewi\u00e9e,   vacated by Hasankhan and as<\/p>\n
per the ='\u00a3e rx2:s'   ti\ufb02 d\u00e9zte they have not<\/p>\n
iIl113]'!i\u00a7$t23.1tCd'V as .,1;eVlV\u00a7owv't1ze properties are to be shared.<\/p>\n
'  "  _1"54.:l't  eiear from the above said evicience adduced by<\/p>\n
the  the 'trial court that evidence of DW2 is<\/p>\n
 not heipfdi\u00e9' :0 the parties as \u00a73}x.D18 has not been<\/p>\n
 \u00bbiiI1pie;3:1e%1ted even as per the fact elicited in the Crass;<\/p>\n
—  e;\u00a7ei1;eina\ufb01on of DW, 1 and further, legal heirs of plaintiff No.3<\/p>\n
  defendant No,6 have not been examined to Show that<\/p>\n
there was a compramise as per Ex.}Z)}.8. it is clear fmm the<\/p>\n
facts eliciteci in the emss-examhia\ufb01on of I)W.2 that he was<\/p>\n
\\%,9*<\/p>\n
43<\/span>
\nnot aware of the a\ufb01airs of the fam\ufb02y during the life\ufb01me of<\/p>\n
Gafurkhan. He knows littie about the partition suit between
\nthe children of Gafurkhan through first wife and ch\ufb02dxfen of<\/p>\n
second wife. He has no knawiedge about the “igfft<\/p>\n
behind by Gafurkhan and Ex.{)18 has  <\/p>\n
and wherefore, evidence af DW.2:’i\u00e9\u00a7\u00bbii6’\u20ac\u00ab   b T <\/p>\n
in the present case anti therefo1’e,.__  ‘left. <\/p>\n
evidence of P\u00b0W.1-piainti\ufb01;  e:1efex;\u00a7ci:_~;1i”\u00a3;vV4I’ii'(;’.t\u00a7:–DW.’7tV<\/p>\n
and the documents got _to \u00e9ahvefmi\ufb01ate their<\/p>\n
ccmtentionf ‘  <\/p>\n
 is Ve\u00a3e\u00e9\u00a3r._\u00e9n::_’;*ipprcciation 0f the evidcnee of PX’-V.1<\/p>\n
 {JV-1.1 a$ contents of the documentary evidence<\/p>\n
‘  parties that the evidence of DWK1 and the<\/p>\n
” ‘– \ufb01foduced by him would clearly Show that<\/p>\n
 has left behind the preperties Comprised in<\/p>\n
V ” ;3.\u00a7hedu1e~A, D and E and S1.Nos.1, 2, 4 to 8 in C schedule.<\/p>\n
 ‘Eiewever, his evidence is not hlepful in proving the<\/p>\n
T contention of the plaintiffs that proper\ufb01cs ‘bearing heuse<\/p>\n
i’~E0s.63 an\u00e9 48 in E3 scheduie which is standing in the name<\/p>\n
cf the first defendant was pmchased by Gafurkhan out of his<\/p>\n
\\9\u00bb\\\/3<\/p>\n
44<\/span><\/p>\n
own income benami in the namt: of his wife.   of<\/p>\n
the document Ex.P23 Wouid cieariy show; ”<\/p>\n
property comprised in B SCh13C\u00a7\u00a7L’l\u00e9”iS’pi1i’Qh\u00a3;\u00a7f3E\u00a7CiV:v3:}}’ d\u20ac’ff\u20ac1ii3.{~i;\ufb01j <\/p>\n
No. 1. The evidence of Dw.\n<\/p>\n
defendant No.1–Jainabi ‘n1g)t}i\u00a7\u00e9r  the
\nsuit property by sellipg gQ:1d—-;iif.’3.:\u00a7in.\u00a7\u00a711t.’\u00a5’.’ i\u00a3?hi<:hA..*:=a'as given to
\nher by her father.   shows that father
\nof Jah1abi\u00ab\u00a7ijm dr::iEii1\ufb02\u00e9 1:11;   sound. The
\ncontenf;\u00a70ni'~..9f  _  :(f$<":}\u00a51sici-.=:rati{:I1 amount for
\n   by, Gafurkhan in respect of
\nthe  the name of first defendant in<\/p>\n
I'F'Spt\u00a7Ct {Sf preperti\u00e9s is not substan\ufb01ated by<\/p>\n
.  \u00abV  z3\u00a7:$:tE\u00e91*3'aI' an  the contention of the plain\ufb01\ufb02s that<\/p>\n
   puzchased benami in the name of first<\/p>\n
Qkautd E<\/p>\n
A \u00bb..g1efend\u00a3ii\ufb01,'is also not 135%\u00bb as it is clear \ufb01om the material<\/p>\n
<:13:1"r\u00a7\u00a3:-orci that the contents of the saint: deed does not Show<\/p>\n
 V.  amount was paid by Ga\ufb01lrkhan. The evidsncc of DW.1<\/p>\n
is not at ali helpful to substantiate the said contention of me<\/p>\n
piaixztiffs. The stock account in Ex.P3 that Rs.3,0()(}\/- was<\/p>\n
paid by Hasankhan is also not helpful to the plainti\ufb01s to
\n\\9\\,.% .\n<\/p>\n
45<\/span><\/p>\n
contend that the saint pmpeety was purchasged <\/p>\n
pIa1;:1′ ti\ufb01” as it is not the avennent .ma\u00a71e   L. <\/p>\n
behalf and Iiasankhan is not.\n<\/p>\n
Evidence of PW. 1 is also n\u00a7>t4–..I;qe1p\ufb01:; in .the:tV”r;s;:1a.1f and <\/p>\n
has admitted that sale (:Zee_(_1: the   the \ufb01mt
\nciefendant. It is  receipts Show that
\ntent was being collecteet  and the same
\nwezxld not   that the property
\npu1’chasett._.wV   jgsvecond wife-Jainabi-first
\ndefe1;jt\u00a7tt\u00e9ttt’A ieffjne wherefore, rent receipts.
\nExs.P;1–.   heipful to substantiate the<\/p>\n
c:oI;tentioxti”~0:fV t.h_\u00e9j–  The tria} court has righly held<\/p>\n
   tespect pmpert:\u20aces aiieged to have been purchaeed<\/p>\n
V  ‘ttame ofwife and unmarried eiaughter, there is<\/p>\n
.22  that the property belongs to the wife or<\/p>\n
datightegr imless it is shown that it is for the benefit of Wife<\/p>\n
2 V. xai1d._cla;..1ghter unless contrary is proved and in the present<\/p>\n
Ateabtse, no contxaxy evidence is iead to prevent the said<\/p>\n
Vt ” “presumption under Section 4 at the said Act as rightly held<\/p>\n
by the trial court and Wherefore, the \ufb01nding of the ma} court
\n\\3-J\u00bb<\/p>\n
46<\/span><\/p>\n
that the plainti\ufb01b have proved that   <\/p>\n
behind the pang:-eny comprised in scihe\u00e9tdej\ufb02, Bi<\/p>\n
schedule is justi\ufb01ed and aceo1di1iA\u00a71y,::’–ie*iiediiig’bf.the”  ._<\/p>\n
court on issues 1 and 2 is  It Was   the ”\n<\/p>\n
defendants and to thatvexjrent me  aof”%:h.e.vv:=j1ppella11t
\nnegativing the claim 01;  of house
\n5103.63 and  “defendant No.1
\n\u00e9ieseribed   So far as item
\nN{).3   ciear from the Inaterial
\non    Whatever is produced to Show
\nthat the  Jamomxt was kept in Syndicate<\/p>\n
 ‘VB”e1gau1:\ufb01” and in the absence of produc\ufb01on of<\/p>\n
\u00bb  that behalf, question of ailotting any share<\/p>\n
”  would not arise and therefore, rejection of<\/p>\n
 iiithe suit for share in item No.3 of (3 schedule is<\/p>\n
V   rig1}t1yV71iega{ived by the tzial court.<\/p>\n
18. Issues 5 and 6 relate\ufb01 to the questi-en as to
\nus<\/p>\n
Whether defen\u00e9ants 1 and 6 have emved that the amount<\/p>\n
shown at S1.Nos.3, 4, 6 and 8 in the suit C sclzledule were<\/p>\n
utilise\u00e9 towards the me\ufb01ical expenses of iate Gafurkhan and
\n\\P-.e (<\/p>\n
47<\/span><\/p>\n
\\\ufb01u\\\\”*<\/p>\n
whether defendantipmved that they have spent   .<\/p>\n
towards funera} expenses of Gafurkhaa and  ” ”<\/p>\n
are liable to contribute to that eictentef  <\/p>\n
contended.\n<\/p>\n
19. issue No.7  u:V\u00e9:,<\/p>\n
48<\/span><\/p>\n
person is examined to preve the said oral gift even the
\ndonee-defemtiant No.6 is also not examined in  case.
\nUnder the cimumsiances, the trial court <\/p>\n
answered the said issue agai\ufb01et the em’ [1 defe192f:\u00a3a1;~te,:V” ”  H<\/p>\n
20. issue NO.8 pertains to:;bf\u00a3}1e:(;41ic:.sf:ip1ii’,3-ans: to.<\/p>\n
the plainti\ufb02” prove that Gafusrighazrfhed 25%%s1;g~;:~e’ i:3:;1.)’.r0f3t\u00bbe.<\/p>\n
and lees in the \ufb01rm. Issue  3″\u20ac.V:.x.A9 ‘pew;   question<\/p>\n
about the accountabi\ufb01ty._ of  to  in View of<\/p>\n
the ;5fd{%e’d I and 6 withdrawn the<\/p>\n
amouiat  of Gafurkhan after his death<\/p>\n
UK’<\/p>\n
the _ “ar;:et211_ righ\ufb02y   answered the said<\/p>\n
 (the ei\ufb01lma\ufb01ve and directed that defendants 1 and<\/p>\n
V   E0-.aceou:1t for the same anti the said \ufb01nding is<\/p>\n
pa1s\u00a2 guszgiede;\n<\/p>\n
”  So far as 25% share of Gafurkhan Soudagar and<\/p>\n
  in the firm shown in sczhe\ufb01ule-D as aiieged, having<\/p>\n
regard to the evidezme of PW.1 as also the facts eiiciied in<\/p>\n
{he erss~–exam;inatien of DW.j{ that he \u00e9oes not knew as to<\/p>\n
whether his father had 25% share in the said \ufb01rm and he<\/p>\n
VJ .\n<\/p>\n
49<\/span><\/p>\n
does no: lmow the nature of business his father vefase<\/p>\n
and he does not know whether the said   _<\/p>\n
converte\u00e9. into partnership business, it is c1e~a;=..  u .. <\/p>\n
court has rightly held that the  <\/p>\n
Gafurkhax; iiadarkhagn Soudagar haei’   e<\/p>\n
schedule-D to: the piaint. \u00a7ssuex’N e’. 11 pe’r\u00a7.a\u00bb’i\ufb01un\u00e9;sv’:to “\u20ac;he share
\nto which \u00a3116: parties areen\ufb01\ufb01eili   of  ebove said
\n\ufb01nding of the trial c:01z;’\u00a7   by us<\/p>\n
having regard;’t{5 Ir\ufb01ateriai 611 \u00abit is clear that the<\/p>\n
\ufb01nding of  the coniemion of the
\ndefendaiits\u00e9and’11d1diizg i.i;Ieit’ fa1ainti\ufb02’s am entitled to share in<\/p>\n
schexi:1\u00a5e–A, “E jemieer\ufb01es and item Nos.1, 2, 4 to 8 of<\/p>\n
.  {EV end that the plainti\ufb01e ave entitied to<\/p>\n
   i\u00a7g\u00a7\u00bb1;g\u00ae;saV:’:~:os.43 and 63 of 8 schedule properties azu\u00e9<\/p>\n
iteg NQ;3′ c$f  schedule properties is justi\ufb01ed. The next<\/p>\n
 ques\ufb01cxfwould be as to the vaiidity of the \ufb01nding given by<\/p>\n
 court regaxding the share which the par\ufb01es are<\/p>\n
  ej\u00e9lti\ufb02ed to in answer to question No.1.<\/p>\n
22. It is clear from the \ufb01nding given by the trial court<\/p>\n
if
\nthat par\u00e9es does not dispute the relationship intersQa”\u00a7<\/p>\n
-50<\/p>\n
Gafurkhan Kadarkhan Soudagar had two  _1<\/p>\n
and defendant No.1. Plaintiffs 2 to 5 are the    <\/p>\n
first wife and defendants 2 to 1 2-‘:;=;i%e’–m\u00a2   b<\/p>\n
second Wife. Wherefore, Ga\ufb01irkhaeie  u<\/p>\n
how through the \ufb01rst   bore V<\/p>\n
to the second Wife-\ufb01rs?’ eiefenai:a&ij;.– ‘H-ep hast \u00abalso page behind
\nbe?   ‘.  M  <\/p>\n
two daughters ale; to ‘the-  :=wifev.a11d seven daughters<\/p>\n
born to the ser.\u00a7d11d  as  the principles of<\/p>\n
$uccessio_n\u00ab”;\u00a7e:jt\u00e9\u00e9J.1i31g..1:o__:’inhereteLnee of the prope\ufb01gy, two<\/p>\n
WiveS; 1n*oe1’\u00e9”  :.;6:\ufb01\u00a5:’_’shaIeVeach. Sons took double the
\nshare ‘efVVd’a.11ghtei’e[  each son of the deceased cf<\/p>\n
iiaearkhei; Seu\u00e9agar burn through the first and<\/p>\n
 seee-incl’-ew1fe axe\ufb02egiti\ufb02ed to 14116031 shale each an\u00e9 each<\/p>\n
  deceased through the first and second wife<\/p>\n
 get””::”i..,Vq”i:t;’)(}*h shape in. the above said properties i.e. in<\/p>\n
 sceee\ufb01lea, :3 and E: pmpel\ufb01es and s1.Nos.1,2, 4 to 8<\/p>\n
A “ii” eie\ufb01tioned in suit C scheduie. Whezefore, the \ufb01nding of the<\/p>\n
 court regarding share to which the parties are enti\ufb02e\u00e9.<\/p>\n
to is aiso justified and does not suffer from any error or<\/p>\n
iiiegality as to call for infierferenee in this appeal.<\/p>\n
‘\\,9-J\u00bb.\n<\/p>\n
Accereiingiy, We ho\ufb01 that the judgment and  ~<\/p>\n
by the trial court is justified  <\/p>\n
interference in this aypeal.\n<\/p>\n
23. POINT No.5; In viewjjjefjaalr answje::r’v.:\u00ab$.:ai5i;;{\u00e9\u00e9s”points V<\/p>\n
for determination, we aeswer by  that the
\njudgment and decree   is justified
\nand does next’    appeal and the
\ncmss o13jecfibe1_s;    the following order:
\n  and Cross Objection
\nNo.34\/QGQ4   judgment and decree passed<\/p>\n
by ftizejj AA Cf’: P\ufb02cjv\ufb02 Judge (Sr.Dn.), Belgaum, in<\/p>\n
j ‘A Q.V’S.jN<$';'\u20ac\u00a75]j'1991 dgi\u00e9\u00e9 16.6.2003 is con\ufb01rmed.<\/p>\n
Sd\/-\u00bb
\nIudge<\/p>\n
Sd\/-~
\nJudge<\/p>\n
l::sv**<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Hajarabi vs Jainabbi on 26 September, 2008 Author: V.G Sabhahit S.N.Satyanarayana IN THE HIGH COURT OFAAKARNATAi\u20ac3\u00a7~.. ..0’os.__” \u00bb PRETSHEN3′ . % .V THE HONBLE MR JUS’1*\u00a3\u00a2E1V.G;s.\u00abj$HAHi3′ THE. HOIWBLE MR’q’t;sT2(;I:\u00a7s.:\u00a7;\u00e9ATY.aNARAYANA REGULAR F112s’;’..\u00bb\u00a7PPaA.L. 1\u00a7”c;_.2’0<)3 _..R::\u00abfA.5gj1::_0ss Q.:3 .JE\u00a7:'.rf:or~: $46.34\u00bb\/2004 In ' ' 8ETwEEVN;' . ' " 1 ..E~IAJAR.ABI..I- . .. W] O.GAF1….IRKHAN SOUDAGAR ' EX"GE'D.82, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-114417","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nHajarabi vs Jainabbi on 26 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hajarabi-vs-jainabbi-on-26-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hajarabi vs Jainabbi on 26 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hajarabi-vs-jainabbi-on-26-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-08T15:55:10+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"36 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hajarabi-vs-jainabbi-on-26-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hajarabi-vs-jainabbi-on-26-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Hajarabi vs Jainabbi on 26 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-08T15:55:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hajarabi-vs-jainabbi-on-26-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":6521,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hajarabi-vs-jainabbi-on-26-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hajarabi-vs-jainabbi-on-26-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hajarabi-vs-jainabbi-on-26-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Hajarabi vs Jainabbi on 26 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-08T15:55:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hajarabi-vs-jainabbi-on-26-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hajarabi-vs-jainabbi-on-26-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hajarabi-vs-jainabbi-on-26-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hajarabi vs Jainabbi on 26 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Hajarabi vs Jainabbi on 26 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hajarabi-vs-jainabbi-on-26-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hajarabi vs Jainabbi on 26 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hajarabi-vs-jainabbi-on-26-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-08T15:55:10+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"36 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hajarabi-vs-jainabbi-on-26-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hajarabi-vs-jainabbi-on-26-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Hajarabi vs Jainabbi on 26 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-08T15:55:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hajarabi-vs-jainabbi-on-26-september-2008"},"wordCount":6521,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hajarabi-vs-jainabbi-on-26-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hajarabi-vs-jainabbi-on-26-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hajarabi-vs-jainabbi-on-26-september-2008","name":"Hajarabi vs Jainabbi on 26 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-08T15:55:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hajarabi-vs-jainabbi-on-26-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hajarabi-vs-jainabbi-on-26-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hajarabi-vs-jainabbi-on-26-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hajarabi vs Jainabbi on 26 September, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/114417","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=114417"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/114417\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=114417"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=114417"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=114417"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}