- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9921 WP No. 12330 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO.12330 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT.RAJAMMA W/O PUTTABASAVAIAH AGE: 65 YEARS R/O MODLUPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK …PETITIONER (BY SRI.NAGARAJA R C, ADVOCATE AND SMT.B.N.MANJULA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DEVANNA S/O LATE CHIKKALINGAPPA 69 YEARS MUDLUPRA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK - 571313 AS PER ORDER DATED 03.03.2025, R.2 AND R.3 ARE TREATED AS LRS OF DECEASED R.1 - DEVANNA. 2. RAJAMMA W/O LATE DEVANNA 61 YEARS Digitally signed by ROOPA R U Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9921 WP No. 12330 of 2018 MUDLUPRA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK - 571313 3. MALLESHA S/O DEVANNA 43 YEARS MUDLUPRA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK - 571313 4. NANDINI W/O LINGARAJU 35 YEARS MUDLUPRA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK - 571313 5. AKHILESH S/O LATE LINGARAJU AGE: MINOR MUDLUPRA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK - 571313 6. NAGASHREE D/O LATE LINGARAJU AGE: MINOR MUDLUPRA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK - 571313 DEFENDANT NOS.5 AND 6 BEING MINORS, REPRESENTED BY THEIR NEXT FRIEND AND MOTHER THE 4TH DEFENDANT 7. KALAVATHI D/O DEVANNA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9921 WP No. 12330 of 2018 W/O BASAVANNA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT BIG STREET KAGALAVADI VILLAGE CHAMRAJANAGAR TALUK - 571313 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.S.SUMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R.4 TO R.6; R.2, R.3 AND R.7 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNEXUER-A PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHAMARAJNAGAR IN O.S.NO.62/2013 ON IA NO.19 AND 20 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER The petitioner, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.62/2013, filed for the relief of specific performance of Agreement of Sale dated 18.10.2008 against the defendants, pending consideration on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chamarajanagar is before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 15.02.2018 rejecting the applications filed by the petitioner under Section 151 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9921 WP No. 12330 of 2018 of CPC and Under Order 26 Rule 10(a) of CPC - I.A.No.19 and I.A.No.20 respectively. 2. By the aforesaid applications, the petitioner - plaintiff sought to re-opening of the case, which was posted for arguments on the main and for reference of signatures and thumb impressions of defendant No.4 and defendant No.7 for the opinion of the Handwriting Expert on the premises that defendant No.4 had denied signature of her husband namely Sri.Lingaraju - one of the Executant of the aforesaid Agreement dated 18.10.2008 and defendant No.7, who herself being one of the Executant of the said Agreement, had also denied her signature. 3. The Trial Court rejected the said applications on two counts. Firstly, since defendant No.4, who is the wife of the deceased Lingaraju, had denied signature of a person, who was not available to obtain his specimen signature and that it was not possible for the Trial Court to send documents for verification without specimen - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9921 WP No. 12330 of 2018 signature. Secondly, as regards to signature of defendant No.7 is concerned, the Trial Court referring to deposition of the plaintiff recorded on 09.01.2017 as extracted in the impugned order concluded that since the plaintiff herself was unable to identify her signatures, it was not possible to send the same for verification. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Trial Court is erroneous inasmuch as since defendant No.4 namely Smt.Nandini - wife of Lingaraju had denied the signature of her husband, the plaintiff had already produced a Deed of Sale dated 30.12.2008 marked as Ex.P.10. Under which, the said Lingaraju had purchased certain properties and the thumb impression on the said document belonged to the said Lingaraju, which are admitted and available to be sent for the purpose of comparison with the thumb impression found on the suit Agreement, which is marked as Ex.P.8. 5. As regards denial of signature by defendant No.7 is concerned, he submits that even as taken note of the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9921 WP No. 12330 of 2018 Trial Court in the impugned order, she had specifically denied her signature marked as Ex.P.8(c). 6. In the light of the aforesaid materials available on record, the Trial Court was not justified in coming to the conclusion that it could not send disputed thumb impression for verification. He submits that in the light of the specific denial made by defendant Nos.4 and 7 with regard to signatures, it was necessary that the opinion of the Expert was required to be obtained in the matter for proper and effective adjudication of the matter. 7. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6/ defendant Nos.4 to 6 submits that though there is no specific denial in the written statement except denying execution of the agreement, a specific query by this Court, however, he fairly submits that defendant No.4 has, indeed, denied the signatures and thumb impression of her husband Lingaraju. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9921 WP No. 12330 of 2018 8. There is no representation of other respondents despite service of notice. 9. Heard and perused the records. 10. The only reason assigned by the Trial Court for rejection of the applications as noted above is the non-availability of specimen signature and thumb impression of the deceased Lingaraju - husband of defendant No.4. This appears to be without reference to the material evidence already made available on record by the plaintiff. In that, the plaintiff, as noted above, has already produced a sale deed dated 30.12.2008 marked as Ex.P.10. In terms of which, the said Lingaraju stated to have purchased certain properties. This fact is not disputed. The Trial Court, therefore, can summon the register containing the thumb impression of the deceased Lingaraju from the concerned Sub-Registrar pertaining to Ex.P.10 and refer the matter for verification of the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9921 WP No. 12330 of 2018 signature and thumb impression found on the suit agreement. 11. As regards the denial of signature by defendant No.7 even as noted by the Trial Court in the impugned order, defendant No.7 has specifically denied her signature found at Ex.P.8(c). Merely because the petitioner has not identified her signatures found on the other pages, it could not be a ground for rejection of the request particularly in the light of the specific denial made by defendant No.7 to a specimen signature, which is marked as Ex.P.8(c). 12. In that view of the matter, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) Consequently, the applications filed in I.A.Nos.19 and 20 by the petitioner for re-opening of the case and also for appointment of an Expert to investigate the disputed signatures and thumb - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:9921 WP No. 12330 of 2018 impressions of defendant No.7 and deceased Lingaraju are allowed. (iii) The Trial Court is directed to send admitted signatures and thumb impression of defendant No.4 found at Ex.P.10, if need by summoning the necessary records from the concerned Sub-Registrar pertaining to Ex.P.10 as well the admitted signature of defendant No.7 and avail the opinion of the Expert before proceeding further in the matter. SD/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3