- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20128 W.P. No.52770/2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.52770/2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. JAYAMMA W/O RAMAREDDY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O. GHATAPARTHY VILLAGE THALAK HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA-577 522. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASAD B.S. ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. ANJANEYALU S/O LINGAPPA @ NINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/O. VEPULAPARTHI VILLAGE BRAHMASAMUDRA MANDALA KALYANADURGA TALUK ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH STATE-515 761. 2. SRI. ESHWARAREDDY S/O LATE LINGAPPA @ NINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O. GUMMAGATTA VILLAGE RAYADURGA TALUK ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH STAT-515. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20128 W.P. No.52770/2019 3. SRI. RAMAREDDY [V.O. DTD:30.03.2021 DELETED] …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.S. SHANKARAGULLI, ADV., FOR R1 [ABSENT] R2 SERVED R3 DELETED) - - - THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.10.2019 IN RA NO.24/2014 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHALLAKERE ON INTERIM APPLICATION IA NO.4 U/S 45 OF INDIA EVIDENCE ACT R/W SEC. 151 OF CPC AS FOUND AT ANX-G & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 23.10.2019 passed in R.A.No.24/2014 by the Sr. Civil Judge and JMFC, Challakere on I.A.No.4 filed by the petitioner under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 2. Heard. 3. Sri.Prasad B.S., learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed an application i.e. I.A.No.4 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20128 W.P. No.52770/2019 under Section 45 of the Act read with Section 151 of the CPC in R.A.No.24/2014 praying to obtain the signatures of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 on a plain white sheet and send the same to the handwriting expert calling upon the expert's opinion with regard to the admitted signatures with the disputed signatures found on Ex.D1-the unregistered partition deed dated 05.06.1979. It is submitted that the suit for partition filed by the respondents came to be dismissed. Later, the respondents filed an appeal and the Appellate Court remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for fresh disposal. After remand, the Trial Court decreed the suit of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 holding that they are entitled for 2/3rd share in the suit schedule property without appreciating the fact that there was an earlier partition on 05.06.1979 and the said partition was required to be proved by comparing the signatures of the respondents on Ex.D1 which would have been clear to decide the lis between the parties. It is further submitted that the Trial Court, while rejecting the application, has given due weightage to the direction issued by this Court in MSA No.55/2015, to dispose of the appeal within six months. It is also submitted that the respondents are not entitled to any - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20128 W.P. No.52770/2019 share in view of the earlier partition and comparison of the admitted and disputed signatures is necessary to decide the entitlement of the respondents. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by directing the expert to submit an opinion on the admitted and disputed signatures of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in a time bound manner. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed O.S.No.91/2010 before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Molakalmuru. The said suit came to be dismissed on 02.07.2011. Being aggrieved, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed an appeal in R.A.No.50/2011. The Appellate Court remitted the matter back to the Trial Court for fresh disposal and on remand, the Trial Court decreed the suit for partition holding that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to 2/3rd share in the suit schedule property. Being aggrieved by the order, the petitioner preferred R.A.No.24/2014 which came to be allowed on 16.03.2015 and the matter was remitted back to the Trial Court - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20128 W.P. No.52770/2019 for framing of proper issues and thereafter, to provide an opportunity to lead evidence and dispose of the suit. The said order was challenged in MSA No.55/2015 before this Court by the respondent Nos.1 and 2. This Court, in the said miscellaneous second appeal, vide order dated 14.12.2018 restored the appeal in R.A.No.24/2014 and issued a direction to dispose of the same after providing sufficient opportunity to both the parties, within a period of six months. 6. The petitioner filed an application under Section 45 of the Act read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking prayer to obtain the signatures of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 on a plain white sheet, send the same along with disputed signatures at Ex.D1 to the handwriting expert and secure the opinion. The Trial Court, considering the rival submissions, rejected the said application by recording a finding that Ex.D1 is of the year 1979 and after afflux of 40 years of time, signatures of the parties would vary. I do not find any error in the said finding recorded by the Trial Court. The petitioner is claiming that there is a partition between the petitioner and the respondents vide unregistered partition deed dated 05.06.1979. Hence, the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20128 W.P. No.52770/2019 suit for partition is not maintainable. In the cross-examination, the petitioner admitted that witnesses to Ex.D1-the unregistered partition are alive. When things stood thus, it was open for the petitioner to examine the said witnesses to prove the contents of Ex.D1. The Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that there cannot be any comparison of signatures of a document which was executed more than 40 years ago with the present signatures of the respondent Nos.1 and 2. It is trite law that the signature sent for comparison must be contemporaneous. In the instant case, Ex.D1 is 40 years old and hence, the same cannot be sent for expert's opinion. The filing of the application by the petitioner is an abuse of process of law and the Appellate Court has rightly come to the conclusion that there is a direction to dispose of the suit within six months and dismissed the appeal. I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the Trial Court. 7. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20128 W.P. No.52770/2019 ORDER The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47