Karnataka High Court
WP/8136/2019 of D S SADIQUE Vs NAGARAJ on 24 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010046522019 NC: 2026:KHC:52792 WP No. 8136 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 8136 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. D S SADIQUE S/O SABJAANSAB, AGED ABOUT
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 8136 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
D S SADIQUE
S/O SABJAANSAB,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
KOLLA, HARIHARA TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577601
2.
SAYYEDAHMED
S/O SAYYEDSABJAANSAB,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
KILLA HARIHARA TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577601.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. M.R. HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
NAGARAJ
S/O MALAKASA MAMARADI,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
2.
DATTU
S/O MALAKASA MAMARADI,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
3.
RAJESHWARI
D/O MALAKASA MAMARADI,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
Verified
HC-KAR
R1 TO R3 ARE RESIDING AT NO.38
HEMANTHNAGAR, P AND T COLONY,
KESHWAPURA, HUBBALLI-580023
4.
SAVITRIBAI
W/O SHASHIKANTA SHIRALKAR,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
PLOT NO.33-34, PATHAN BUILDING,
BENGERI EXTN., SHETTAR COLONY,
HUBBALLI-580023
5.
MANJULA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
W/O MANOHAR KALBURGI,
H.NO.11, MADHURA COLONY,
KUSUGAL ROAD, KESHWAPURA,
HUBBALLI-580023
6.
NETRAVATI
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
W/O ASHOK MEGHARAJ
GAJANAN HANDLOOM WORKS
BHAGYANAGAR, KOPPAL-583231
7.
JAYASHREE
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
W/O ASHOK BADDI,
11, M.Y.KALB, B-BLOCK,
MADHURA COLONY, KESHWAPUR,
KUSUGAL ROAD, HUBBALLI-23
8.
BHAGIRATHI
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
W/O GOPALSA KABADI,
BEHIND KEB SHIVAJI PITCH,
GROUND, NEAR MULGUND NAKA,
GADAG-582103
9.
GEETA
W/O MANJUNATH SOLANKI,
Verified
HC-KAR
9(A)
9(B)
SINCE DEAD BY LRs
AKSHAY
S/O MANJUNATH SOLANKI
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
PALLAVI
D/O MANJUNATH SOLANKI
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT PLOT NO.12,
PADMA HOUSING SOCIETY
NCC OFFICER, MANGALWARPETH
KOLHAPURA-416 503.
10.
RAMNATHSA TULAJANSA MEHARWADI
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
S/O TULAJANSA MEHARWADE,
PRASHANT INSTITUTE
TEMPLE ROAD, HARIHARA-577601
11.
VENKUSA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
S/O TULAJANSA MEHARWADE,
II CROSS, I MAIN, KR NAGAR
HARIHARA-577601
12.
12(A)
12(B)
RAVINDRANATHSA
S/O TULAJANSA MEHARWADE,
SINCE DEAD BY LRs
NAVEEN
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
S/O RAVINDRANATHSA
M. SILPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
D/O RAVINDRANATHSA
BOTH ARE R/AT C/O DR M.M.VADRIKOPPA
SHINDHI BUILDING,
Verified
HC-KAR
OPP SRINIVAS SILK KAPPADKERI,
DHARWAD-580001
13.
RENUKABAI
W/O GOPALKRISHAN MEHARWADE
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
14.
KARTIK
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
S/O GOPALKRISHAN MEHARWADE
15.
BHAVAN
S/O GOPALKRISHAN MEHARWADE
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
16.
16(A)
16(B)
16(C)
16(D)
DHARMASA
S/O TULAJANSA MEHARWADE,
SINCE DEAD BY LRs
SMT. LAXMI DHARMASA MEHARWADE
W/O DHARMASA MEHARWADE
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
SURAJ DHARMASA MEHARWADE
S/O DHARMASA MEHARWADE
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.235, BASAVESHWARA NAGAR
3RD MAIN, GOKULA ROAD, HUBALLI-580 030.
RAKSHITHA NARAYAN HABIB
D/O DHARMASA MEHARWADE
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT ARAVIND NAGAR MAIN ROAD,
KARWAR ROAD, OLD HUBALLI-580 030
PRIYANKA CHETHAN BHANGADE
D/O DHARMASA MEHARWADE
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/AT NO.235, BASAVESHWARA MARG
Verified
HC-KAR
3RD MAIN, 2ND ROAD, HUBALLI-580 030
17.
MANJUNATH
S/O TULAJANSA MEHARWADE,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
D.NO.402/0, 5TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN,
NEAR HAND BOREWELL, J.C EXTN. HARIHARA,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577601
18.
MARUTI
S/O TULAJANSA MEHARWADE,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
DODDIBIDI, NEAR GARADINAMANI
APSARA BEAUTY PARLOUR
HARIHARA, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577601
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANTOSH S. GOGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R8, R12(A
AND B, R16(A TO D;
R9(A), R9(B), R10, R11, R13, R14, R15, R18, R16(A TO D)
ARE SERVED)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.12.2018 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED PRL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE, HARIHARA DISMISSING THE
PETITIOENR’S IA-6 IN FDP 11/14 VIDE ANNX-E; AND ETC.
THIS
PETITION,
COMING
ON
FOR
PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
3
Decisions referred to
In this index
3
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed by the petitioners calling in question the order dated 11.12.2018 passed by the FDP Court in FDP No.11/2014, whereby the application
Verified
HC-KAR
filed by the petitioners seeking modification of the shares allotted under the preliminary decree, placing reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Prakash v. Phulavati, reported in (2016) 2 SCC 36, and Mangammal @ Thulasi v. T.B.Raju, reported in (2018) 15 SCC 662, came to be rejected.
2. Having perused the impugned order and the grounds urged in the present writ petition, this Court is of the view that the petitioners cannot seek modification of the shares declared under the preliminary decree by placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgments, particularly in view of the subsequent authoritative pronouncement of the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, reported in (2020) 9 SCC 1.
3. On the contrary, it is open for the daughters, if so advised, to seek re-determination of their shares before the FDP Court by filing an appropriate application in the
Verified
HC-KAR
pending final decree proceedings, in the light of the law declared by the Constitution Bench in Vineeta Sharma (supra). The Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that the benefit of the law declared therein can be extended even in pending proceedings, including final decree proceedings, subject to the facts and circumstances of the case.
In that view of the matter, this Court finds no merit in the challenge to the order impugned herein. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
It is, however, made clear that dismissal of the present writ petition shall not come in the way of the daughters filing an appropriate application before the FDP Court seeking re-determination of their shares in accordance with the law declared by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vineeta Sharma (supra).
Verified
HC-KAR
If such an application is filed, the FDP Court shall consider the same in accordance with law and on its own merits.
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE
NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9
Verified