Karnataka High Court
Ibrahim S/O Yakub Sayed vs Smt Sayeeda Anwar Sayed on 16 June, 2011
Author: K.Govindarajulu
Bench: K. Govindarajulu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCH
AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF JUNE 2011
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJULU
RFA NO.3025/2009
BETWEEN
Ibrahim Sb Yakub Sayed
Age 82 years,
Rio sayed Building,
Lamington road,
Hubli.
Appellant
(By Sri. G.R.Artdanimath, for D.L.Ladkhan, M.L.Ladhan,
V.M.Vcnkatcsh Advs.)
AND
I. Smt Sayeeda Anwar Sayed
Age major, 0cc Teacher. R/o hubli
2. Prof.Karima Ataullakhan
Age major, 0cc Professor
R/o House no.2505,2nd Cross
MCL(a) Bock, behind Ramakrishna Ashram
Davangere
3. Nazma Ahmad Sayed
Age Major 0cc Household work
r/o a/i. Nay bharath. Co-Op Housing
Society Itd,erla nallabile parlc(w)
4.-.
2
bombay
4. Idrus s Sayc'd Since dead by his irs
age: 50
Rahima [dais Sayed
0cc Household Work r/o Shaikh Anwar
H.No. 179/n
Dobolim Airport ,Vasco
Goa
5. heena nooric
age: 33
0cc Household Work c/o Shakir Non
Noorie house, Masjid (Ialli,
near Mahim Main Dargah
dargah road, Mahim(w), Bombay
6. Zeba d/o Dawood Sayed
Age: 30
0cc household work
R/o Sayed Manzil, Lamington Road,
hubli
7. Reshma D/0 Dawood Sayed
Age: 37
0cc Student
R/O Sayed Manzil, Lamington Road,
Hubli
8. Sayed 5/0 Dawood Sayed
Age: 23
0cc Student RIO Sayed Manzil
Lamington Road,Hubli
9. Raziya W/0 Dawood Sayed
Age: 56
0cc Household Work
R/0 Sayed Manzil ,Larnington Road,
Hubli
S
to. Abdul Karim s o Yakub Saved
Age major. r/o 7th floor
c.b.Building, Kalidas road.
Bangalore
11. Shamsunnisa w/o Usman Sayed
Age Major, 0cc Household work,
R/o Barchiwala Chawl, Tabibland
Hubli.
12. Smt.Sharfunisa Kalimulla
Since deceased by Lrs.
12(a)Seema W/o Shafi
Age: 45 years, 0cc: Household
Resident of Hassan.
12(b)Anjum S/O Kalimulla
Age: 40
0cc Business. RIO Koramangala
Bangalore
12(c)Mehdis/0 Kalimulla
Age: 37
0cc Business, RIO Koramangala
Bangalore
12(d)Aashi W/0 Abid
Age:3
0cc Business, R/0 Hassan
13. Smt.Khairunnisa
W/o zakariya Sayed
Age: Major, RIo Belle, yue
Dr. Ambedkar road,
Pall, Naka, Bandra(w).
Born bay -50.
14. CotmacPvt.Ltd.
Sayed Manzil
4%--
4
Lami n4ton Road H u Lii
Zba AutcconsLdurw
Sa:ed Manzji.
Lamincton Roan. HuLL.
(iv sri: V P Kulkarni., for R.LR3, R4 to R 1, R12(D)
& R13 to R15 are scrved)
This RPA is filed u/s96 Order 41 Rule 1 R/W 8151 of
CPC, against the order and decree dated 07/09/2006 passed in
PDRNo7/200 1 on the fTc of the Principal Civil Judge(SrDn)
Hubli, allowing the petition filed under Urdr 20 Rule 18 R/W
54of C PC
This RPA comma on for admission iii is dna, the court
dcl ivered the 1/9 lowin
:
9
2 6 D C M 0
Dcfcrda..nt Nod is thc appellant in tins am.ca] chalienping
thcdc cree passed Lv the Ci.vil Judge (Sr. Dn), Hubli ir.FD P
No7/2001 in OSNo39/i995.
2. Though. th.c case is comi.ng or for ad.m.iss i.on., b
cons oni.. of bot.h. the pa.rt (as. heard on merits.
0 5Na ru..) n a 4' t. Oq nina K /4r to 4/s B. là roan :o.si.
in ILR 2006 KAR 1080. a is. 4 'o: is a
)
-- ;--i " • '
' .1 :?
2" : . _j
) : '. ii • . I i .'I ' %
) S
)tg 0
Ii $ 'C' TI
.1 •i' 1
T. P s--s , : ' i('%%I
J)• r II)' tiP II vU i
1 IF U') t 3J )i St v ) )'j .1
.).ipi. ii I .%f .'.'jc • 7 i sir! 1 ; '
•; •i-'i -'zn 'u ,"'
's." !
.4)11(4 3 )41 J tii)L)iOd B lc'4I p )U')2UL )Sfl 31 SU 14 )fl '1 1
()U.T')UI 4t MU t I p.)i11P1 iOU SI flUt3 lIi3IMJJflS ol iptiaiuo
•Ufl StUn I- Wj'' 1-)jjH 1JLII U( nw tr Un (j i--dwd :
p iad U sc 4 I flIOflsI liwo )q 'naoissiwwo )41 au -juiodd
' u" p ssrcl s;'q • tm - i-i p JO titttbSrSI
1' 1
n titi 9i
tfI L)tjr iS" 'qa f' 1 1IJ 4(1 U p.)TJJJ 1
UT. .41 ((- V4I; •'
, -tpicrp in, c1 uvp 1 U' )SV) tIt{ Ji tflflJ
1
g. ','' 'ii'
. .1' %%_
bf j iii -1 s-:t-j. •4
'
'% N $ )jTT
I jt"J 1"1 fl phi 1 )J (1 LIII') '
C .Y % • I t.1.kq(
I 'P1 M 41 "I I )1 I tL •'91 J [011 lapIstJ '
Ut'LI p'It' jI1tI iLi:aJUpIII'L( .'iFi ii' i"iI'iiftII"XJ tinu p.n;
6
5. On the other hand, learned advocate for the
respondents contend that after filing of the report by the
Commissioner, objections are filed. Thereafter, the court was obliged to refer the case again to the Commissioner. The Commissioner has redone the subject. At least while redoing, there was a duty cast on the defendant to submit his memo of instructions to the Commissioner, it being not done, the suit being of 1995, the FDP is of the year 2001, the objections are without any merit. So, pray for dismissal of the appeal.
6. The ruling relied by the learned advocate is that the aggrieved party should have his say and make submissions. In the facts of the case, approximately three months time is granted to file memo of instructions. In the entire objections, filed to the Commissioner's report, why the memo of instructions is not filed is forthcoming. The memo of instructions filed is after the report. cart cannot be put before the horse. The method adopted by the appellant defendant No.2 is similar one.
C-
Para I v' thc Oi)p om H )9i'l'is',l flvt B p' it 1'. c1C1 t%
a i In
T !.a . I'l iLl:-- ':' 'I.--' L.a . '.'n;.l
inruissu iii '%g irk •' *1., ..itpIit •jI.,,.s uk . t lb
clrle' dana \e .
'VP, lItt 'i i. .i'i •,nnnrti: '11' Ii)
tin & tendar t no 2 'c Ilk r 'mt' ' n%I rut II;
T1i l'i.itnt. I i'jrr 'cr. '•' tt,1•
lZivc the j;trtes to put then sj in I hi t jsr 11131 a
this CflUflt 11%'' cflfllTii'SSk'P ra.pci:.t it r.'qI
itr ii In
dcseaxded"
7 Cents issinne r n_port t par 1 rt ids is
_tndt r
' Utti n' '. ni. th •nnri stOat u.i 'xcci
tI'gd9'f flfl 1 ) iii
ill F nat cand it rLspc r. i zr F'
4 1 !.2('('.-- •:. .ia It :'d iit ', 'li • •.rt ri ._n,
•.
% j% "l'ui•' . : .;l::' ( s ' • ._ '' •
if'., '
• 1. 'Hj, :'ae
1' '%
ST r •I
•' 1 !'
C '•
4 n.Y C 11 11.1 I
eqil, si of .nhicaic. lot C Ic tid it Nc, . %,, f)g'tc n,biris \e'.2 (11(1
t! 4! ' •j nprr e Ian t )1 .fl 'sii'ft I 4 I V )Ij
S 1 'l,Iis.
•
(,:' n. •!t r. -- % • •, •
•s'r :._•• •.--•
'h' tuurt. 1)", (_ ':nnitssi' 'Fir r si; .!.1 ha :.ike fl tier •)%si%tii.ut
uI the %tlfl fli'R flit t(•UI 1 ( all ilitwi d pit' fl t. dc' a b. it is f'r
1
the C" )IllIllIssIe "itt in 1
akc appre q'riatc rin is011. ',n tlw dii et Lion rann' t N irad as ;i maiiik.tc'n S' this ' ibmissie )Jj ' rt'jcrtuel.
ii) Ntxt sibmtsion 1% :._tr f:i fl' 'TB, 'it 11)511 lB tjqflq 's
gntn irr
t
ar if 'lint is st, th, ic should b.n e bern in iiir
)bJec. tiolis tie tlic Conirnissionc.r ) Ft p )rt aI I ating whit Ii of thc
i tr'ictioils tic Iolloi' cc md . vc F F - 1511 ueiot' ire no
lic 'cd. 'bit sUth c rut it I r £ c jc. t'on '. t
t 'Si"fllS ( Cl
(In r -i
• jr :t 'S ll
• '[A" ut Tic in
'hr i' tn-, \ 1 ii is • I j (1 II
I' I
•
• .1 )? I
• '1 5 1%
• -i_a's'
JN 'ni' )fl% Cd Jilt Ito''!! is lb '1 st it'flhiti''. l Intl i iriciing is en cii
itli. at' io'lc'g.. ?. • '. iclijit • N' --; I. pi ' ;tjur' .r.pr 1st, J
''tiiiii
'i I jo. z nu nc d ic I DP piex tcd car be
anuls sect 'torn ont. rnorc anuc also c nc of iht obic clions is sc t
bat k is 1101 t ikc ii notc. b' thc c onun'ssionts v. hilt
nirvine the snarc Find decice passcd 1, not disclosc. sct ba k.
she i1It'NU) Of instrLItiic.ils JR fl(jt flit d Dot I :'iiciirs It) uppnr'
ib pl' of t i hark tire flj'I h1•d Sn ih' tht',,n of I bat k N nol
hit subieci unzcd brunt flit I, nmmissic,n"r is i'n bubijiced Tb"
ot her ol 'p--cd' ins not %i jentitu ii''! t€'k' 'ri i" 'Ic 'ii the is" In
l•irflt'lts
t
tt a tZJt' J):'ft lilAc flt ' I i% clV 1!' '1 'I P 'ci t!1lCflt
ol Cot lit 551 15.1 lfl(j flf.j) )tt Ii •) ii t.' I' H
rq' t, LI it iii I I
r •1b1 t c hi
'I" •'t r. ''
It II C ; d • t
'
S jS, ' •
_. :...iI..:.% •_•• ..••
• •'.
• '
. .'.
--. ': '. •' : :
10
defendant No.2 has not filed any objections to the report goes unchallenged.
So, there is no merit in the appeal. Dismissed.
Sd!..
JUDQz P1* / pv