- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14192 WP No. 103369 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 103369 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR S/O. RAMAKRISHNA DARGA, AGE:58 YEARS, OCC:PRIVATE WORK R/O: JAMAKHANDI, NOW AT PLOT NO F/8, FIRST FLOOR,GOVIND ARCTIC WING, SADAR BAZAR OLD R.T.O OFFICE, SATARA (MAHARASHTRA). …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G. I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. LEELVATHI W/O. NANDAKISHOR DARGA, SINCE DEAD R2 TO R4 TREATED AS LRS OF R1 2. PRAKASH W/O. NANDAKISHOR DARGA, AGE:50 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS, R/O. AT/POST KODULI, NEAR RAJYOG DHABA, LOKMANYA COLONY, KODULI, TAL:DIST:SATARA (MAHARASHTRA). 3. ANITA W/O. PURUSHOTTAM CHANDAK, AGE:47 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD, R/O. NEAR KIRANA BAZAR BANHATTI, AL:JAMAKHANDI, DIST:BAGALKOT. 4. PRADEEP S/O. NANDAKISHOR DAGA, AGE:45 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS, R/O KACHERI GALLI, JAMAKHANDI, DIST:BAGALKOT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.C.HUKKERI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; R2 TO R4 LRS OF DECEASED R1) Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14192 WP No. 103369 of 2017 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 27 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IS RESPECT OF O.S.NO.69/2012 ON THE FILE FO THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, JAMAKHANDI. QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.02.2017 MADE IN O.S.NO.69/2012 ORDER ON I.A.NO.7 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, JAMKHANDI PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-E BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTIONS AND FURTHER ALLOW I.A.NO.7 AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This petition is filed assailing the order dated 21.02.2017 on I.A.No.7 passed in O.S.No.69/2012 on the file of the Civil Judge, Jamakhandi. 2. The application to produce the secondary evidence of registered Will dated 02.11.1971 said to have been executed by the plaintiff’s grandfather is rejected. 3. The Trial Court has held that there is no proper pleading relating to the loss of the original Will and in whose custody the original Will is lost. 4. This reasoning of the Trial Court is erroneous. In the plaint itself the plaintiff has pleaded that the original - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14192 WP No. 103369 of 2017 Will is not with him and it is in the possession of the defendants. Thus, the foundation is laid for producing the secondary evidence. The defendants now disputed the plaintiff’s claim. 5. The Trial Court has come to the conclusion that in case the document is allowed to be marked, the plaintiff may make an attempt to get the signature on the document marked. If it is a certified copy of the Will registered in 1971, the certified copy will not bear the signature. However, the plaintiff can produce the secondary evidence. 6. Mere marking of a document does not amount to proof. The proof of the Will is again depends on other evidence to be placed on record. 7. Under these circumstances, the Trial Court erred in rejecting the application for adducing the secondary evidence. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Hence, the following: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14192 WP No. 103369 of 2017 ORDER (i) Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 21.02.2017 on I.A. No.7 passed in O.S. No.69/2012 on the file of the Civil Judge, Jamakhandi is quashed. (iii) The application in I.A.No.7 is allowed. (iv) It is made clear that merely because the production of certified copy of registered Will is allowed, it should not be construed as having held that the Will is proved. The Will is required to be proved by adducing evidence, as required under law. (v) In case the plaintiff intends to secure the original thumb impression of the alleged executant available in the office of the Sub- Registrar, the Trial Court shall allow such application, more so in a situation where the plaintiff seeks to compare the admitted thumb impression of the testator, if any, with the thumb impression of the testator, if available, in the office of the Sub-Registrar. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14192 WP No. 103369 of 2017 (vi) While considering the proof of secondary evidence, the Trial Court shall also consider as to whether original Will is deliberately withheld so as to keep the thumb impression/signature of the testator on the alleged Will, from being subjected to the scrutiny by the Court. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE NAA/CT-ASC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8