- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10842 WP No. 112179 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 112179 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: RAVINDRA S/O. MURGENDRAPPA TELASANG, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: MEDICAL SHOP OWNER, R/O. APARNA MEDICAL STORE, MARATHA COLONY ROAD, OPP. APMC, DHARWAD, & NO.57, PARAMAJYOTI BUILDING, MALAPUR ROAD, DHARWAD. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. KAVITA S. JADAV, ADV. FOR SRI. ARUN L. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHILAJA W/O. RAJASHEKHAR YADAHALLI, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. C/O. R.V. YADAHALLI, L.I.C. QUARTERS ROAD, SARASWATPUR, KANITKAR BUILDING, DHARWAD. 2. SHRIKANTHBABU S/O. MURGENDRAPPA TELASANG, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: PENSIONER, Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10842 WP No. 112179 of 2019 R/O. PLOT NO.77, SANGMESHWAR NAGAR, APMC ROAD, BOXSITE ROAD CIRCLE, BELAGAVI. 3. SMT. SUMANGALA W/O. DANAPPA JATTI, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. C/O. DANAPPA BASAPPA JATTI, SHAPUR AGASHI, MULLA AGASI NEAR, VIJAYAPURA. 4. SMT. SULALITA W/O. VISHWANATH INDI, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. C/O. VISHWANATH C. INDI, HUNDEKAR ONI, BAGALKOTE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G. S. SAVADATTI, ADV. FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 AND R4 ARE SERVED; NOTICE TO R3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRTI OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.07.2019 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE DHARWAD IN O.S.NO.629/2010 ON I.A.NO.12 AND 13 FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC AND ORDER 26 RULE 1(3) R/W. SECTION 151 OF CPC RESPECTIVELY AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE SAID I.A.NO.12 AND 13. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10842 WP No. 112179 of 2019 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) This petition is filed seeking for following reliefs: “a. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Wrti Of Certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 10.07.2019 passed by the Principal Civil Judge Dharwad in O.S.No.629/2010 on I.A.No.12 and 13 filed under Section 151 of CPC and order 26 rule 1(3) r/w. section 151 of CPC respectively as per annexure-A and allow the said I.A.No.12 and 13. b. Pass any other proper and suitable order which this hon’ble court deems it fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Heard. 3. Smt.Kavita S.Jadhav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the defendant No.4 in the suit in O.S.No.629/2010 filed by respondent No.1 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Dharwad (for short, ‘trial Court’) for relief of partition and separate possession. It is submitted that the petitioner filed applications to summon the Sub-Registrar who registered the Will dated 24.12.2007 executed by the mother of defendant No.4 in his favour and to reopen the evidence of defendant No.4. It is submitted that under the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10842 WP No. 112179 of 2019 impugned order, the trial Court rejected both the applications on the ground that the Will is required to be proved by the defendant No.4 by adducing proper evidence and not by examining the Registrar of the Will. It is further submitted that the Registrar has made specific endorsement on the Will with regard to the state of mind of the executor of the Will and to prove the said contents of the Will/endorsement, it would be difficult for the defendants to prove the Will. It is also submitted that this is only an opportunity and the Registrar who registered the Will is the only competent witness to depose with regard to the state of mind of the executant of the Will. Hence, she seeks to allow the petition by permitting the petitioner-defendant No.4 to examine the Sub-Registrar who registered the Will in question. 4. There is no representation on the other side. 5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and meticulously perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10842 WP No. 112179 of 2019 6. The respondent No.1 filed a suit in O.S. No.629/2010 for a relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. The petitioner is the defendant No.4 in the said suit and has specifically contended that his mother executed the registered Will dated 24.12.2007 with regard to one of the suit schedule properties. To prove the said contention and the Will in question, the petitioner examined one of the witnesses to the Will as another witness is paralyzed and is unable to depose before the Court. A perusal of the plaint averment at paragraph No.5 indicates that the respondent No.1/plaintiff has specifically pleaded that the defendant No.4 by misusing the old age of Shantadevi, managed to obtain the registered Will in his favour with the help of his henchmen and the deceased Shantadevi was not in sound disposing state of mind at the time of the execution of the Will. 7. The aforesaid contention with regard to the sound disposing state of mind of the executant of the Will can be proved by examining the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar who was present and registered the Will in question. The jurisdictional Sub-Registrar has put his endorsement on the will with regard to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10842 WP No. 112179 of 2019 the state of mind of the executant of the Will. Taking note of the said contention raised in the plaint and considering that the burden to prove the Will and the state of mind of the executant of the Will is on the petitioner, I am of the considered view that no prejudice would be caused to the other side if the defendant No.4 is permitted to examine the Sub-Registrar who registered the Will in question. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to the pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 10.07.2019 passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Dharwad in O.S. No.629/2010 on I.A. Nos.12 and 13 filed under Section 151 of CPC and under Order 26 Rule 1(3) read with Section 151 of CPC respectively is set aside. Consequently, I.A. Nos.12 and 13 are allowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE RH /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5