Karnataka High Court
Lalsab Gaibusab Sanadi @ Walikar And Ors vs Lalsab S/Lo Dadasa Sanadi @ Mulla And Ors on 19 September, 2022
Author: M.G.S.Kamal
Bench: M.G.S.Kamal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
R.S.A.NO.200175 OF 2016 (PAR)
BETWEEN
1 . LALSAB GAIBUSAB SANADI @
WALIKAR AND ORS
SINCE DEFENDANT BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS.
2 . JAMALBI
W/O LALSAB SANADI @ WALIKAR
@ MULLA
AGE: 58 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O MULAWAD,
TQ & DIST: VIJAYAPUR
3 . JAITUNBI
W/O BANDAGISAB KARJOL
AGE: 38 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O MULAWAD
TQ & DIST: VIJAYAPUR
4 . RAJAKBI
W/O ROOKMUDDIN GOODALMANI
AGE: 38 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O TODALBAGI,
TQ: JAMKHANDI
DIST: BAGALKOT
2
5 . GAIBUSAB
S/O LALSAB SANADI @ WALIKAR
@ MULLA
AGE: 33 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O HOSUR,
TALUK & DIST: VIJAYAPUR
6 . NOORJAN
W/O LALSAB MULLA
AGE: 28 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O BIJJARGI,
TALUK & DIST: VIJAYAPUR
7 . BEEBIJAN
D/O LALSAB SANADI @ WALIKAR
AGE: 25 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O KANABOOR,
TALUK & DIST: VIJAYAPUR
HUSENSAB
S/O GAIBUSAB SANADI @
WALIKAR
SINCE DECEASED
REP. BY HIS LRS
8 . AASHABI
W/O HUSENSAB SANADI
@ MULLA @ WALIKAR
AGE: 63 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O HOSUR,
TALUK & DIST: VIJAYAPUR
9 . RAJESAB
S/O HUSENSAB SANADI
@ MULLA @ WALIKAR
AGE: 19 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT
R/O HOSUR,
TQ & DIST: VIJAYAPUR
3
10 . HAJASAB
S/O GAIBUSAB SANADI
@ WALIKAR
AGE: 53 YEARS,
OCC: SERVICE
R/O HOSUR,
TQ & DIST: VIJAYAPUR
11 . HUSAINBI
W/O LADALESAB JAMAKHANDI
AGE: MAJOR
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O HOSUR,
TQ: DIST: VIJAYAPUR
12 . CHANBI
W/O HUSAINSAB MULLA
AGE: MAJOR
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O HOSUR,
TQ & DIST: VIJAYAPUR.
...APPELLANTS
(By Sri.BASAVARAJ KAREDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . LALSAB
S/O DADASA SANADI
@ MULLA AND ORS
AGE: 43 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O HOSUR,
TQ & DIST: VIJAYAPUR
2 . GAIBUSAB
S/O DADASAB SANADI @ MULLA
AGE: 37 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
4
R/O JUMANAL,
TQ & DIST: VIJAYAPUR
3 . KASHIMBI
W/O DASTAGIRSAB SANADI @ MULLA
AGE: 53 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O NEHRU NAGAR,
GYANG BAWADI
VIJAYAPUR
4 . MAINBUSAB
S/O DASTAGIRSAB SANADI @ MULLA
AGE: 27 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT
R/O NEHRU NAGAR,
GYANG BAWADI
VIJAYAPUR
5 . HUSENSAB
S/O DASTAGIRSAB SANADI @ MULLA
AGE: 25 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT
R/O NEHRU NAGAR,
GYANG BAWADI
VIJAYAPUR
6 . MOHAMMADSAB
S/O DASTAGIRSAB SANADI @ MULLA
AGE: 23 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT
R/O. NEHRU NAGAR,
GYANG BAWADI
VIJAYAPUR
7 . MABU
W/O BABASAB HOSUR
AGE: 33 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O SONNA
TQ.BILAGI
DIST: BAGALKOT
5
8 . RAJAKBI
W/O MASLAN TELSANG @ WALIKAR
AGE: 28 YEARS,
OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK
R./O. KHAJA AMEEN DARGA
VIJAYAPUR
9 . SAINAJ
W/O. AMEENSAB MULLA
AGE: 25 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. NEHRU NAGAR,
GYANG BAWADI
VIJAYAPUR
10 . MURTUJABI
W/O MAIBUSAB HANCHALE
AGE: 23 YEARS,
OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. HANCHALA
TQ: SINDAGI
DIST: VIJAYAPUR
11 . ROSHAN
W/O. HUSENSAB WANTI
AGE: 53 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. SONNA, TQ:BILAGI
DIST: VIJAYAPUR
NAJUKBI
W/O SAIDU HOSUR
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR.S
12) SAIDUSAB
S/O MODINSAB HOSUR
AGE: 83 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. SONNA TQ:BILAGI
DIST: VIJAYAPUR
DAVALSAB
S/O SAIDUSAB HOSUR
6
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR.S
13) BISMILA
W/O DAVALSAB HOSUR
AGE:43 YEARS,
OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. SONNA, TQ:BILAGI
DIST: BAGALKOT
14 . MAIBUSAB
S/O DAVALSAB HOSUR
AGE: 23 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. SONNA TQ:BILAGI
DIST: BAGALKOT
15 . MAMATAZ
D/O. DAVALSAB HOSUR
AGE: 23 YEARS,
OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. BUDIHAL, TQ:BILAGI
DIST: BAGALKOT
16 . JANNAT
S/O. DAVALSAB HOSUR
AGE: 41 YEARS,
OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. SONNA TQ:BILAGI
DIST:BAGALKOT
17 . SALIM DAVALSAB HOSUR
AGE: 24 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE
R/O. BUDIHAL TQ:BILAGI
DIST: BAGALKOT
18 . JAVID
D/O DAVALSAB HOSUR
AGE: 22 YEARS,
OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. BUDIHAL TQ:BILAGI
DIST:BAGALKOT
7
19 . BASASAB
S/O. SAIDUSAB HOSUR
AGE: 41 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE
R/O. SONNA, TQ: BILAGI
DIST: BAGALKOT
20 . FATIMA
W/O. MAIBUSAB JAMAKHANDI
AGE: 39 YEARS,
OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. SONNA, TQ:BILAGI
DIST: BAGALKOT
21 . RAMIJAMBI
W/O. RAFIK NAGARAL
AGE: 37 YEARS,
OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. SONNA, TQ:BILAGI
DIST: BAGALKOT
22 . NABISAB
S/O. SAIDUSAB HOSUR
AGE:35 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE
R/O. SONNA, TQ:BILAGI
DIST:BAGALKOT
23 . MABUBI
W/O SAIDAPUR HOSUR
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS
GULASENA
D/O. MAIBUSAB INAMDAR
AGE:43 YEARS,
OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. NIDONI TQ:VIJAYAPUR
DIST:VIJAYAPUR
24 . SAMASHAD
W/O. MAIBUSAB GODEKAR
AGE: 29 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. BUDIHAL
8
TALUK: BILAGI
DIST: BAGALKOT
25 . NAFIZA
W/O. MAIBUSAB MULLA
AGE: 27 YEARS,
OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. NEHRU NAGAR,
GYANGBOUDI
DIST:VIJAYAPUR
26 . HASINNA
D/O. HASANSAB MALLALLI
AGE:25 YEARS,
OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. BADAGI
TQ:BILAGI
DIST:BAGALKOR
27. JAITUNBI @ PARAVINNA
D/O. HASANSAB MALLALLI
AGE:20 YEARS,
OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. BADAGI
TQ:BILAGI
DIST:BAGALKOT
28 . BABU
S/O. IMAMSAB SANADI @ MULLA
AGE:53 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE
R/O. JUMANAL
TQ & DIST:VIJAYAPUR
29 . MUKTUMMA
W/O. SAIPANSAB DODAMANI
AGE:53 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE
R/O. JUMANAL
TQ & DIST:VIJAYAPUR
30 . SHAJADABI
W/O. NABISAB TIPIMANI
9
AGE:MAJOR,
OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. RABAKAVI AND BANAHATTI
TQ:JAMAKHANDI
DIST:BAGALKOT
31 . MODINSAB
W/O. NABISAB TIPIMANI
AGE:MAJOR,
OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. TIGANNIBIDARI
TQ & DIST:VIJAYAPUR
32 . AMINA
W/O. ALLAUDDIN ISALI
AGE:MAJOR,
OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. KUMBAR GALLI
RABAKAVI
TQ:JAMAKHANDI
DIST:BAGALKOT
33 . RAJAKSAB
S/O. NABISAB TIPIMANI
AGE:33 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE
R/O. TONASHYAL
TQ & DIST:VIJAYAPUR
34 . LALASAB
S/O. NABISAB TIPIMANI
AGE:48 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE
R/O. TONASHYAL
TQ & DIST:VIJAYAPUR
35 . DASTAGIRSAB
S/O. NABISAB TIPIMANI
AGE:43 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE
R/O. TONASHYAL
TQ & DIST:VIJAYAPUR
10
36 . RAJAKABI
W/O. HASIMPEER HUGAR
AGE:38 YEARS,
OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. TIKOTA
TQ &DIST:VIJAYAPUR
37 . MABUBI
W/O. IBRAHIMSAB PANGAMEL
AGE:46 YEARS,
OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. TONASHYAL
TQ & DIST:VIJAYAPUR
38 . MODINSAB
S/O. HUSENSAB TIPIMANI
AGE: 88 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE
R/O. TONASHYAL
TQ & DIST:VIJAYAPUR
39. CHANDASAB
S/O. HUSENSAB TIPIMANI
AGE: 83 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE
R/O. TONASHYAL
TQ & DIST:VIJAYAPUR
40. MABOOBI
W/O. HUSENSAB KANAGALA
AGE:83 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE
R/O. SONNA
TQ:BILAGI
DIST:BAGALKOT
41 . THE SLAO
ALMATTI
...RESPONDENTS
(R1-LALSAB SD)
11
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.04.2016, PASSED IN R.A.
No.66/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,
VIJAYPUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE
JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.03.2013, PASSED IN O.S.
NO.130/2003, ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AT BIJAPUR.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED,
COMING ON FOR 'PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT', THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Present appeal is by the Appellants/Defendants No.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 26.04.2016 passed in R.A.No.66/2013 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Vijayapura (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court'), in and by which, the First Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal, confirmed the Judgment and Decree dated 14.03.2013 passed in O.S.No.130/2003 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bijapur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court').
2. Parties are referred by their original ranking before the Trial Court.
12
3. Plaintiffs had filed the above suit in O.S.No.130/2003 for partition and separate possession of their share in land bearing Survey No.59 measuring 12 acres 39 guntas situated at Hosur village, Bijapur Taluk (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit property') contending that suit property was originally standing in the name of propositus Lalsa @ Wallad, S/o.Gaibu Sanadi. At that time, village Hosur was in Gunadal Taluka of Satara District. The said Lalsa was in possession of the suit land till his death. After his demise, his sons, viz., i) Gaibusab,
ii) Dadesab, iii) Imamsab, iv) Pakeersab were in joint possesion of the suit land. However, name of eldest son Gaibusab was entered in the records of rights in respect of the suit property. Pakeersab died issueless (unmarried). Thus, after the death of propositus Lalsab, his sons, i.e., Gaibusab, Dadesab and Imamsab were entitled to 1/3rd share each in the suit property being his legal heirs. With the advent of Inam Abolition Act, the suit land vested with the Government as the same was Inam/Chakari land. After the demise of Gaibusab, names of his sons, i.e., 13 Defendants 1 to 3 alone was entered into in the records of rights as per M.E.No.650 which was obtained behind the back of the plaintiffs who were at that relevant point in time, were at Maharashtra state for eaking their livelihood. The said mutation entry does not create any right and title over the entire suit property in favour of the defendants and the same is not binding on the plaintiffs. The said entry was obtained in collusion with the revenue authorities as there was no parittiion of the suit proeprty. Plaintiffs No.1 to 13 who represent branch of Dadesab are entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit property. Plaintiffs No.14 and 15 representing branch of Imamsab are entitled for 1/3rd share. Defendants No.1 to 3 representing the branch of Gaibusab are entitled for 1/3rd share. Hence, sought for decree of partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share in the suit property. That the suit property was going to be submerged in Upper Krishna Project and the defendants 1 to 3 were in hurry to receive entire compensation amount to be awarded by Defendant No.4 14 without having exclusive right to receive the compensation.
4. Defendants No.1 to 3 in their written statement denying the plaint averments, contended that Lalsa also known as Lala S/o.Gaibu Sanadi was in no way concerned with the suit property. It is also denied that he was in possession of the suit property and on his death, his aforesaid three sons, namely, Gaibusab, Dadesab and Imamsab are in joint possession being entitled for 1/3 rd share therein. It is specifically contended that suit property is the Walikaraki land and the same was granted in favour of Defendants 1 to 3 in terms of order dated passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bijapur in Enquiry No.LRL.SR-191 dated 01.06.1972. As such, the contesting defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of the same. Prior to the said grant, the suit property was in absolute possession of Gaibusaheb who rendered the service of Walikaraki. Neither the plaintiffs nor their father have any right, title, interest over the suit property. The 15 plaintiffs have not challenged the grant or the revenue entries which is standing in the name of Defendants 1 to 3 for several decades. The plaintiffs are thus not having any share in the suit property. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit.
5. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:
i) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are in possession of suit properties as tenants in common on the date of suit?
ii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for 2/3rd share in the suit property?
iii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for 2/3rd share in compensation amount awarded in respect of Survey No.59 of Hosur by S.L.A.O?
iv) Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit?
v) Whether the suit is hit under Section 133 of K.L.R Act?
vi) What order and decree?16
6. Plaintiff No.1 has been examined as P.W.1 and one Babu Imamsab Sanadi has been examined as P.W.2 and have exhibited ten documents marked as Ex.P1 to P10. On behalf of defendants, one Khajisab ahs been examined as D.W.1 and Bheemappa and Venkatappa have been examined as D.Ws.2 and 3. Defendants have produced two documents marked as Exs.D1 to D2.
7. Trial Court on appreciation of evidence, held Issue Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative. Issue Nos.3, 4 and 5 in the negative and consequently, decreed the suit holding that the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property by its Judgment and Decree dated 14.03.2013.
8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment and Decree, Defendants 1 to 3 represented by their legal representatives filed regular appeal in R.A.No.66/2013 before the First Appellate Court. Considering the grounds 17 urged in the memorandum of appeal, the First Appellate Court framed the following point for consideration:
"Whether the plaintiffs are successful for share in view of the grounds raised in the appeal memo that the Judgment and Decree being perverse, illegal and erroneous and call for interference as claimed by appellants/defendants 1(a) to 1(g), 2(a), 2(b), 3, 5 and 6 in the interest of justice."
9. By the impugned Judgment and Order, the said appeal was dismissed by the First Appellate Court confirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants/defendants 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 are before this Court.
10. Sri.Basavaraj Kareddy, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal submitted that:
18
i) That admittedly suit land was Walakaraki land. The office of Walakaraki
devolves on the eldest male member of the family who alone inherits the office and consequently land attached to the said office would be inherited only by his descendents.
ii) That in terms of the order dated 01.06.1971 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bijapur under the Mysore Village Office Abolition Act, 1961, the suit land was regranted in favour of Gaibulalsab Sanadi alone he being the eldest son entitled to inherit the office which was earlier held by his father Lalsab. The other sons of Lalsab had no right of any nature either in the office or the land attached thereto which was held by Lalsab. The said order of regrant not having been challenged before any forum, has attained finality. 19 That since the parties are governed under the principles of Muslim Personal Law where there is no concept of joint family, the sons of Lalsab Sanadi cannot claim to be tenants in common.
iii) The other sons of Lalsab who are not the occupants of the suit land were not entitled for the regrant of the suit property.
iv) That the Trial Court and First Appellate Court erred in holding that the regrant made in the name of Gaibulalsab Sanadi was for the benefit of the entire family inasmuch as after coming into force of the Mysore Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961, land vest with the State and was regranted in the name of Gaibulalsab in consideration of he being the occupant of the office and was exclusively entitled to hold, possess and enjoy the suit land. The plaintiffs claiming to be representing the 20 branches of Dadesab and Imamsab, the other two sons of Lalasab are not entitled for share in the property.
v) That the appellants had filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC seeking production of additional evidence and that the First Appellate Court without considering the said application, erred in disposing the main appeal which is contrary to law.
vi) Hence, seeks for allowing of the appeal.
11. On the other hand, Sri.Shivananda Patil, learned counsel for the respondent submits that:
i) The law with regard to grant of land in favour of one member of the family enuring to the benefit of other members of the family is well settled.21
ii) In the instant case, the suit properties were attached to Walikaraki office which was held by the original propositors, namely, Lalsab. That upon his demise, his eldest son, namely, Gaibusab was holding the office and consequently, the regrant had been made in his name which is for the benefit of the entire family consisting of sons of Lalsab.
iii) He relies upon the Judgment of Divsiion Bench of this Court in the case of BEERAPPA vs. FAKIRAPPA BEERAPPA BANDROLLI AND OTHERS (ILR 2006 KAR 4170) and Judgment dated 14.12.2007 of this Court in the case of IMAMSAB CHANDSAB GURIKAR AND OTHERS VS. MOHDINSA NABISA GURIKAR passed in RFA No.588/1996. Thus he submits that no substantial question of law arises for consideration and seeks for dismissal of the appeal.22
12. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
13. The fact that the suit land was attached to the office of Walikaraki and said office was held by original propositus, namely, Sri.Lalsa @ Wallad, s/o. Gaibu Sanadi and he was in possession of the said land till his demise is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that said Lalsa passed away leaving behind his sons Gaibusab, Dadesab, Imamsab and Pakeersab.
14. The plaintiffs contend that upon the demise of said Lalsa, his aforesaid sons are in joint possession of the suit property. That out of the aforesaid four sons, Pakeersa passed away issueless. Plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Dadesab and Imamsab while defendants are the legal heirs of Gaibusab. Thus, each of the branch is entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit property.
15. As against the said contention of the plaintiff, the contesting defendants while disputing the claim of the 23 plaitniff, have pleaded that the Assistant Commissioner, by its order dated 01.06.1972, had granted the suit property in favour of the defendants. Prior to the said grant, the suit land were in possession of their father Gaibusab who was rendering the service of Walikaraki. That since the land was held by said Gaibusab and upon his demise, the same has come in possession of his sons, namely, Defendants No.1 to 3 and the same having been granted in their favour, they are the exclusive owners in possession of the same and the plaintiffs and other defendants are not having any share, right, title and interest over the same.
16. As already noted, there is no dispute with regard to the suit land having been attached to Walikaraki office which was held by original propositus Lalsab. Said Gaibusab, the father of Defendants No.1 to 3 was the eldest son of the said Lalsab. In terms of principles of primogeniture, the office of Walikaraki being hereditary one, has come into the hands of said Gaibusab along with 24 emoluments attached to the said office including the suit land. The law in this regard is well settled.
17. In the case of Beerappa vs. Fakirappa supra, this Court has held that where an office is attached to joint family, any person holding that office will be holding the same on his behalf and on behalf of other members of joint family on an interest in office means and includes right to survivorship of members of joint family. The Court has further held the junior members of the family are also the holders of village office and after the abolition of village office and resolution of grant under presumption on regrant under Section 5, the land becomes available for partition and junior members are entitled to seek partition as per personal law.
18. Referring to the settled principles of law, the co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of IMAMSA CHANDSA GUDIKAR supra, dealing with identical set of facts and the very office of Walikaraki has while answering 25 Point No.2 at Paragraph 48 of the said Judgment at Page 21, has held as under:
"Thus, under Section 2(1)(g) of the KVOA Act, 1961, the expression 'holder of a village office' or 'holder' means a person having an interest in a village office. It also includes 'whole body of persons' having an interest in the village office, where such village has been entered in a register or record or relating to such village office being held by such body. The word 'person' in clause (b) of Section 3(1) includes persons. It is not just the eldest son of a walikar who has demised, who has an interest in the village office, but all his sons would have an interest in the office as well as the emoluments attached to such office including land, although only the eldest son is conferred the said office on the basis of rule of primogeniture and not on his individual merit being higher as opposed to the merit of his other family members. In this context, the judgment in Yamanavva and another vs. Chandrawwa (supra) must be distinguished as in that case, the regrant was made exclusively in favour of defendant therein after there was a partition in the joint family. But in Appanna and others vs. Lakkappa Devappa (supra), it has been held that where a regrant is made in the name of one of the members of the family who was performing walikarki service, the regrant enures to the benefit of all the members in the family and the members of a family have the right to claim partition in the said regranted land just as they had the right to the village office. Therefore, the appellants herein are entitled to seek the relief of partition and separate possession even though the parties are Muslims as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that faith would not create any cleavage insofar as this aspect of the matter is concerned. Just as the members of a joint Hindu family would be entitled to seek partition and separate 26 possession of the land regranted under the provisions of the KVOA Act, 1961, similarly, the members of a Muslim family would be entitled to seek such a division."
19. The Trial Court and First Appellate Court have dealt extensively with regard to the factual aspect of the matter of the suit property having been attached to Walikaraki office possessed by original propositus Lallu @ Lalsab. The Trial Court and First Appellate Court have also taken into consideration the law applicable with regard to rights of other members of the family in the matter of this nature.
20. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of considered view that no substantial question of law would arise for consideration in the matter. Hence, the following:
ORDER Appeal in RSA No.200175/2016 is dismissed and Judgment and Decree dated 26.04.2016 passed by the I Additional District Judge, Vijayapura dismissing R.A.No.66/2013 and confirming the Judgment and Decree 27 dated 14.03.2013 passed by II Additional Civil Judge, Bijapur in O.S.No.130/2003 is confirmed.
Sd/-
JUDGE bnv