- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24283 WP No. 7720 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 7720 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. JAYAMMA D/O LATE SRI. MUTHEMANNA, W/O SRI. ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT NO.238, 4TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN, GOKUL EXTENSION, BENGALURU - 560 054. 2. SMT. GANGAMMA, W/O LATE PUTTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, 3. SRI. B.P. MOHAN KUMAR S/O LATE PUTTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT BYLAKERE VILLAGE, SHIVAKOTE POST, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK - 560 089. 4. SRI. THIMMEGOWDA S/O LATE MUTHEMANNA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT NO.10/6, 4TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN, GOKUL EXTENSION, BENGALURU - 560 054 5. SRI. RAJANNA S/O LATE MUTHEMANNA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT BYLAKERE VILLAGE, Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24283 WP No. 7720 of 2025 SHIVAKOTE POST, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK - 560 089. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M. LOKESH BABU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. GANGAPPA S/O LATE MUTHEMANNA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, BYLAKERE VILLAGE, SHIVAKOTE POST, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK - 560 089. 2. SMT. PUTTAGANGAMMA @GANGAMMA D/O LATE MUTHEMANNA, W/O NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS R/AT HANUMANTHEGOWDANA PALYA, NELAMANGALA TALUK - 562 123, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 3. SRI .N. RAMAKRISHNA, S/O K. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT KURUBARAPETE, OLD HOSPITAL ROAD, SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 105. 4. SRI. C. RAJU @ RAJA S/O SRI. CHELUVAIAH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT NO.48/13, 4TH MAIN 2ND CROSS, MATHIKERE, BENGALURU - 560 054. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.N. ARAKESWARA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04/12/2024 PASSED IN OS NO. 1294/2015 ON IA NO. 8 BY THE VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, AS PER ANNX-A AND DISMISS / REJECT THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE R1 UNDER SECTION 63(2) OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, WITH EXEMPLARY COSTS AND ETC., - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24283 WP No. 7720 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT ORAL ORDER The petitioners, plaintiffs in O.S.No.1294/15 on the file of VII Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, are before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the order dated 4.12.2024 passed on I.A.No.8 in O.S.No.1294/2015 allowing the said application filed by the defendants under Section 63(2) of the Indian Evidence Act permitting them to produce the partition deed and getting it marked. 2. Heard Sri M.Lokesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the entire writ petition papers. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the defendants have not laid any foundation while filing the written statement and as such, the trial Court could not have permitted the defendants to produce Xerox - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24283 WP No. 7720 of 2025 copy of so called partition deed by allowing I.A.8 filed under Section 63(2) of the Indian Evidence Act. 4. A perusal of the written statement, which is placed on record, would indicate that at paragraphs no.5, 6 and 7, the defendants have stated that, partition had taken place under a panchayath parikath during the year July 1986, under which all the properties of the family were partitioned. Further, the written statement would also reveal that, acting upon the said partition deed, revenue records have been changed. The trial Court noticing the fact that, in the written statement there is a mention about the partition deed and taking note of the affidavit averments that, the original copy of the partition deed is with plaintiff no.4, permitted the defendants to produce the Xerox copy as there is a foundation in the written statement with regard to partition deed/panchayat parikath. There is no error in the order under challenge. However, at the time of marking the document, it is open - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24283 WP No. 7720 of 2025 for the plaintiffs for objecting marking of the same on a legal and valid grounds. 5. Production of a document is different from marking a document in a proceeding. However, liberty is reserved to the plaintiffs to urge the grounds urged herein, in case the judgment goes against the plaintiffs and plaintiffs were to file an appeal. With the above, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE rs List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13 CT: BHK