- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22265 WP No. 5629 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 5629 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT.MAYAMMA W/O LATE GANGADHARAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RESIDING AT VADDARADIBBA VILLAGE LAKKAVALLI HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK CHIKKAMANGALURU DISTRICT – 577 128. 2. SMT.G.LAKSHMIDEVI @ LAKSHMI W/O NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS HOUSEHOLD WORK RESIDING AT:DOOR NO. 218 2ND MAIN ROAD, 2ND CROSS NANJUNDESHWARANAGARA NANDINI LAYOUT BENGALURU – 560 096. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI NAGARAJA N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI BHADREGOWDA S/O SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS RESIDING AT KALLUSIDDARAMATA Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22265 WP No. 5629 of 2021 SAKARAYAPATNA VILLAGE AND HOBLI KUDUR TALUK CHIKKAMANGALURU DISTRICT – 577 548. 2. SMT.SAROJAMMA W/O LATE CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS. 3. SRI ANNAPPA S/O LATE CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS. 4. SRI CHANDRASHEKARA S/O LATE CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS THE RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 ARE AGRICULTURIST RESIDING AT NANDIBATTALU VILLAGE LINGADAHALLI HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK CHIKKAMANGALURU DISTRICT – 577 129. 5. SRI KRISHNA NAIKA S/O LASMA NAIKA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS AGRICULTURIST RESIDING AT:NANDIBATTALU VILLAGE LINGADAHALLI HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK CHIKKAMANGALURU DISTRICT – 577 129. 6. SMT. NARASAMMA W/O N.R.MANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22265 WP No. 5629 of 2021 HOUSE WIFE RESIDING AT NANDIBATTALU VILLAGE LINGADAHALLI HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK CHIKKAMANGALURU DISTRICT – 577 129. 7. SMT. KARIYAMMA W/O RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS HOUSEHOLD WORK RESIDING AT NANDIBATTALU VILLAGE LINGADAHALLI HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK CHIKKAMANGALURU DISTRICT – 577 129. 8. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER NANDIBATTALU VILLAGE, LINGADAHALLI HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMANGALURU DISTRICT – 577 129. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.S.PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND R-7; R-1, R-3 TO R-6 AND R-8 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.27.1.2021 PASSED BY THE LOWER COURT ON I.A-22 IN O.S.NO.368/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. JMFC, TARIKARE CHIKMAGALURU MARKED AS ANNEXURE-K AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22265 WP No. 5629 of 2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner - plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are at the doors of this Court calling in question an order dated 27.01.2021 passed by the Civil Judge and Additional JMFC, Tarikere, Chikmagaluru, on an application – I.A.No.22 filed under Order No. XXVI. Rule 10 of the CPC, in O.S.No.368/2012, seeking to refer the disputed signature and left thumb impression on the disputed documents to an handwriting expert, stands rejected. 2. Heard Sri Nagaraja N., learned counsel for petitioners and Sri B.S.Prasad, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 7. Respondent Nos.1, 3 to 6 and 8 are served and unrepresented. 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: The petitioners - plaintiffs institute a suit for declaration and possession contending that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule properties and seek protection of their possession. They would further contend that the sale deeds - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22265 WP No. 5629 of 2021 dated 12.12.1978 and 24.04.1981 will not bind the rights of the plaintiffs. Defendants filed their respective written statement on various dates. The written statement of defendant No.7 is filed on 11.09.2013, contending that she has purchased the suit property in the year 1994, from the first plaintiff. Issues are framed on 16.06.2017 and the trial was on. During the subsistence of the trial, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order No.XXVI Rule 10(a)(1) r/w. Section 151 of the CPC seeking reference of the signatures on the sale deeds of the years 1978 and 1981 to an handwriting expert. The same comes to be rejected and the refusal of the application has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would reiterate the grounds set out in the application – I.A.No.22 to contend that the thumb impression on the sale deeds was necessary to be referred to an handwriting expert as the claim of the plaintiffs is, those sale deeds are not binding upon the plaintiffs. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22265 WP No. 5629 of 2021 5. Learned counsel for respondents would vehemently refute the contentions of the learned counsel for petitioners, contending that the sale deeds that the petitioners are now wanting to set a claim is 40 years old and the thumb impression found on the sale deeds do not requires to be sent to an handwriting expert, unless the concerned Court itself encounters a doubt with regard to the signatures / thumb impression on the documents. 6. I have given my anxious consideration made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The link in the chain of dates and events are all a matter of record. The concerned Court rejects the application – I.A.No.22 on the following reasons: “REASONS 6. Point No.1: The plaintiffs have filed this suit for the relief of declaration to declare that, they are the absolute owners and for possession of the suit schedule properties and also prayed to declare that, the sale deeds - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22265 WP No. 5629 of 2021 dated 12.12.1978 and 24.04.1981 are not binding on them. When the case is set down for hearing arguments on merits, the plaintiffs have came up with the present application on the ground that, it is necessary to compare the admitted signature and LTM of the 1st plaintiff along with the disputed signature of the 1st plaintiff in the application schedule documents. On going through the oral and the documentary evidence adduced and produced by the both parties it came to be notice of this Court that, both the parties have led sufficient oral and documentary evidence to decide the lis between both the parties. The evidence accrued on record is Itself sufficient and there is no necessity to compare the disputed and admitted signatures and LTM of the 1st plaintiff through the handwriting expert. Moreover, the report of the handwriting expert is not conclusive proof. The report of the handwriting expert cannot be accepted without further corroboration. When the materials available on record is itself to decide the dispute between the parties, the comparison of admitted disputed signature and LTM of the 1st plaintiff through the handwriting expert is not necessary. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the Negative. (Emphasis added) The concerned Court holds that both the parties have lead oral and documents evidence. The evidence on record itself is sufficient and there is no necessity to direct reference of the disputed or admitted signatures or the thumb impressions to an handwriting expert. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22265 WP No. 5629 of 2021 8. It also requires to be noticed at what stage the application is filed by the plaintiffs. The application comes to filed by the plaintiffs when the matter was at the stage of evidence. On all these factors, I do not find any error or perversity in the order passed by the concerned Court on the application seeking reference of the disputed signatures to an handwriting expert, for this Court to entertain the petition exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and obliterate the proceedings. 9. With the above observations, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE nvj List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37