- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32914 WP No. 19117 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 19117 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT.S.M.SHYAMALA SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS 1. SRI RAKESH V. SHAH S/O LATE VASANTH KUMAR P SHAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. 2. SMT. PUSHPA V. SHAH D/O LATE VASANTH KUMAR P. SHAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. 3. SMT. PREETHI V. SHAH D/O LATE VASANTH KUMAR SHAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO. 407 2ND ‘B’ CROSS ROAD 3RD BLOCK, 3RD STAGE BASAVESHWARANAGARA BENGALURU – 560 079. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI V. SANJAY KRISHNA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT.S.M.USHADEVI W/O LATE PRABHAKAR AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32914 WP No. 19117 of 2025 RESIDING AT NO. 1028 RAGHAVENDRA NILAYA 1ST CROSS, 1ST STAGE L N COLONY, YESHWANTHPURA BENGALURU – 560 022. 2. SMT.S.M.ANUSUYA W/O DEVARAJU B.L., AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT NO. 12/41, 2ND CROSS JAI MARUTHINAGAR NANDINI LAYOUT BENGALURU – 560 096. SRI S.M.JAGADISH SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS RESPONDENT NOS. 3 TO 5 3. SMT. POORNIMA W/O LATE S.M.JAGADISH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. 4. SMT. NEETHA W/O THRIBHUVAN AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS (3) AND (4) ARE RESIDING AT: NO.1021, 2ND CROSS ROAD K.N.EXTENSION, YASHWANTHPUR BENGALURU – 560 022. 5. SMT.NISHA W/O PREETHAM AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT U.S.A, 21511 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32914 WP No. 19117 of 2025 SOUTH EAST 22ND STREET, SAMMAMISH WA 98075. 6. SRI S.M.SHANKAR S/O LATE S.M.RAJAN AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 51 58, 3RD CROSS ROAD K.N.EXTENSION YESHWANTHPUR BENGALURU – 560 022. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI YASHWANTH NETHAJI N.T., ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 12.06.2025 PASSED BY THE XXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-6) VIDE ANNEXURE-A, DISMISSING I.A. NO. 23 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN IN O.S. NO. 5229/2012 AND CONSEQUENTLY REFER THE DISPUTED HANDWRITING AND SIGNATURES OF LATE S.M. RAJAN MARKED UNDER EX.D-41(A) TO 41(C) WITH HIS ADMITTED SIGNATURES FOUND ON EX.D- 44 AND EX.D-45 FOR COMPARISON TO EXPERTS AS PRAYED FOR, IN THE I.A. NO. 23. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32914 WP No. 19117 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners/defendant 1(a) to (c) are before this Court calling in question the order dated 12-06-2025 rejecting the application filed by them for referring disputed handwriting and signatures of one late S.M.Rjan, to the handwriting expert for comparison with admitted signatures. 2. Heard Sri V Sanjay Krishna, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri yashwanth Nethaji N T, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 3. The Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the signatures that are sought to be referred to, for an expert opinion are the signatures of the father of original plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3. The deceased father is said to have written in his diary that it is his desire that the property should be divided in a particular manner. This the learned counsel for the petitioners submits was an oral partition and it is acted upon. The petitioner are staying in the said premises even as on date. Therefore, files an application before the concerned Court for - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32914 WP No. 19117 of 2025 referring the admitted signatures for Forensic Science Laboratory to secure an expert opinion. 4. The concerned Court, by the impugned order, rejects the application. The order reads as follows: “…. …. …. 14. Point No.1: Here the present suit is filed by the plaintiffs against defendants for the relief of Partition, Separate Possession and mesne profits, wherein it is the contention of plaintiffs that, they are the sisters of defendants and their father is S.M.Rajan and mother is Smt.H.T.Gowramma. S.M.Rajan acquired the suit Schedule ‘A’ property by virtue of registered Sale Deed dtd. 09.02.1990 executed by B.D.A and their mother Gowramma acquired suit Schedule 'B' and 'C' properties by virtue of registered Sale Deeds dtd. 20.01.1989. Both of them had put up construction over said sites. The Khatha of 'A' Schedule property was in the name of S.M.Rajan and Khatha of 'B' and 'C' properties were in the name of H.T.Gowramma and they were paying regular taxes to concerned Authority. 15. The specific contention of plaintiffs is that, when they requested the defendants to effect Partition of the suit schedule properties and to give them shares in the same as their parents died intestate on 03.05.2010 and 03.02.2012 respectively, without any testamentary disposition of suit schedule properties, defendants refused for the same. Later, they came to know that, defendant No.1 has got Khata of Schedule 'A' property in her name and has submitted affidavit before concerned Authority that her parents have got only 3 children, they are defendant No.1 and other defendants and accordingly, by giving false information she got entered Khata of Schedule 'A' property in her name. Based on said information, defendants Nos.2 and 3 got entered Khata of Schedule 'B' and 'C' properties in their names respectively, only with an intention to defraud the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32914 WP No. 19117 of 2025 legitimate right and share of plaintiffs over the suit schedule properties. 16. Here the main contention taken by defendant No.1 is that, though suit Schedule 'A' property was allotted by B.D.A to their father S.M.Rajan, the house was constructed in said property with the contribution of funds by defendant No.1. Hence, she had vested interest over Schedule 'A' property. Even it is her contention that, she herself was paying regular tax with respect to Schedule 'A' property. Defendant No.1 has admitted acquisition of Schedule 'B' and 'C' properties by their mother Smt.H.T.Gowramma and tax being paid by her and she being the absolute owner of both the properties. 17. The specific contention of defendant No.1 is that, Sri S.M.Rajan had put her and her children in possession and enjoyment of Schedule 'A' property way back in the year 1985 and had given exclusive right to exercise their ownership over said property. Hence, plaintiffs have no right to claim any share in said property. 18. On perusal of records, it is forthcoming that, the evidence of both the parties is concluded. Now, by filing the present application, the legal heirs of defendant No.1 are contending to refer the disputed handwriting and signatures of S.M.Rajan marked under Ex.D.41(a) to Ex.D.41(c) with the original signatures of S.M.Rajan found on Ex.D.44 and Ex.D.45. Here, admittedly, Ex.D.41(a) to Ex.D.41(c) are marked subject to objections of plaintiff Counsel and authenticity of said documents and same can be considered while considering the evidence of the parties. during merits of the case. Ex.D.44 is the Possession Certificate issued by City Improvement Trust Board, Bengaluru on 22.05.1975 and Ex.D.45 is original Sale Deed dtd. 14.02.1990. Admittedly, both these documents does not contain the handwriting of S.M.Rajan and only signature of S.M.Rajan is forthcoming in both the documents. Hence, there is no any admitted handwriting of S.M.Rajan to sent for expert opinion. However, in Ex.D.41 (a) and (c) only the signature of S.M.Rajan is forthcoming. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32914 WP No. 19117 of 2025 19. For the sake of arguments, even if it is considered that, the handwriting in the Diary pertains to S.M.Rajan and he has mentioned in the Diary regarding giving of 'A' Schedule property to defendant No.1 that itself will not create any absolute right in favour of defendant No.1 or her legal heirs with respect to the suit Schedule 'A' property as the wiring in the diary will not amount to valid document of transfer of right, title and possession with respect to immovable property as contemplated under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act and Indian Registration Act. 20. Here, if at all, Ex.D.41 was any document of transfer as per the provisions of above said Acts, then under such circumstances, there would have been some relevancy to refer the disputed and admitted signatures for expert opinion. However, now by referring the Ex.D.41 along with Ex.D.44 and Ex.D.45 no legal purpose would be served. Here, the suit is of the year 2012 and even there was direction for disposal of the suit within stipulated period. Moreover, as discussed above, no purpose can be served by referring the admitted and disputed signatures for expert opinion. Hence, in view of my above discussions, I answer Point No.1 in the Negative.” The rejection of the application is rendering sound and cogent reasons, which would not entail any interference at the hands of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that while answering the application the trial Court has already concluded that the petitioners have no right. Therefore, the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32914 WP No. 19117 of 2025 observations made while dismissing the application shall not come in the way of answering the suit on its merit. The petition thus stands rejected. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE BKP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54