- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10185 WP No. 107417 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 107417 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. MAHADEVI W/O. SIDDAPPA DIWAN, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC. AGRICUTLURE, R/O: BUDINI – 587 121, TQ. RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST. BAGALKOT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR BURJI,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. LAXMAWWA W/O MAHADEV SANKANNAVAR SINCE DEAD BY LR’s A. PUNDALIK S/O MAHADEV SAKANNAVAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS OCC: ARGICULTURE B. RAVI S/O MAHADEV SAKANNAVAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS OCC: ARGICULTURE BOTH ARE R/O NAGARAL 587113 TQ. BILAGI, DIST. BAGALKOT 2. SMT BHARATI W/O HANAMANT METI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10185 WP No. 107417 of 2024 AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O KARISIDDESHWAR TEMPLE NEAR MARUTI TALKIES, MAHALINGAPUR 587312 TQ. RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST. BAGALKOT 3. SMT SHRIDEVI W/O. RAVI SANKANNAVAR AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O NAGARAL 587113 TQ. BILAGI, DIST. BAGALKOT …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.L. MATTI., ADVOCATE FOR R1 (A & B), R2 AND R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.11.2024 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANAHATTI, REJECTING THE I.A.NO.IX FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER UNDER ORDER XXVI RULE 10-A OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN O.S.NO.82/2022 AT ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10185 WP No. 107417 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Set aside the Order dated 11.11.2024 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Banahatti, rejecting the I.A.No.IX filed by the Plaintiff/Petitioner under order XXVI Rule 10-A of Code of Civil Procedure in O.S.No.82/2022 at Annexure-A and consequently. b. Allow the I.A.No.IX filed by the Plaintiff/Petitioner under order XXVI Rule 10-A of Code of Civil Procedure in O.S.No.82/2022 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Banahatti, produced at Annexure-D. c. Pass such other order or direction, this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case. 2. A suit in O.S No.82 of 2022 had been filed by the petitioner seeking for 1/3rd share in the suit schedule “A” properties. In the said suit, respondents No.2 and 3 had filed a written statement categorically stating that petitioner-plaintiff had relinquished her share in favour of the husband and father of defendants No.2 and 3. In fact in the plaint which has filed also there was a categorical averment made - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10185 WP No. 107417 of 2024 by the plaintiff at para No.6, that the husband and father of defendants No.2 and 3 who is none other than the brother of the plaintiff had got created a bogus document styled as relinquishment deed in respect of the schedule “A” property and in para No.7 it was contended that the said document is not binding and does not confer any right on the aforesaid Ramappa Meti. 3. In the suit an application under Rule 10-A of Order 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been filed seeking for reference of the admitted thumb impression of the plaintiff to the fingerprint expert to compare the same with thumb impression on the relinquishment deed. The said application having been dismissed, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. 4. The submission of Sri.Rajashekhar Burji., learned counsel learned counsel for the petitioner is that; 4.1. There being a valuable right in favour of the plaintiff in respect of seeking partition of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10185 WP No. 107417 of 2024 property and defense having been set up that the relinquishment deed which has been executed, it was but required for the trial Court to have referred the matter to fingerprint expert having not done so, would cause undue harm and injustice to the plaintiff. 4.2. His submission is that even DW-1 i.e., defendant No.1 has in her cross-examination expressed her no objection for reference of the said thumb impression on the relinquishment deed to a technical expert which has not been taken into account by the trial Court. 5. Sri.S.L.Matti., learned counsel for respondents No.1 (a and b) and respondent No.2 and 3 submits that; 5.1. There being no relief which had been sought for as regards the relinquishment deed and only the relief of partition having been sought, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application. 5.2. His submission is also that it is for the plaintiff to establish that she has not executed the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10185 WP No. 107417 of 2024 relinquishment deed by independent evidence, and mere reference to a fingerprint expert would not establish the case of the plaintiff, and as such, he submits that the writ petition is required to be dismissed. 6. Heard Sri.Rajashekhar Burji., learned counsel learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.S.L.Matti., learned counsel for respondents. Perused papers. 7. The plaintiff at the time of filing of the suit itself at para Nos. 6 and 7 has categorically stated that the said Hanamant Meti, the husband and father respondents No.2 and 3 had got a bogus documents styled as relinquishment deed created without the consent and behind back of the plaintiff. 8. Thus, when the suit was filed in the year 2021 the plaintiff was very much aware of such a relinquishment deed being in existence albeit the plaintiff had contended that the same was a bogus document created behind the back of plaintiff. 9. Despite being aware of the same, no relief in respect of the said relinquishment deed had been sought for - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10185 WP No. 107417 of 2024 and only a relief of partition without reference to the relinquishment deed had been sought for. When the relinquishment deed has not been challenged, the question of the plaintiff leading evidence through an expert by referring to the thumb impression on admitted documents as also on the relinquishment deed to ascertain whether it is that of the plaintiff is completely unsustainable. Since any such reference and any report submitted by the expert, even if it is in favour of the plaintiff would not enure to the benefit of the plaintiff, when no relief in respect of said relinquishment deed has been sought or. 10. The trial Court has also appreciated the fact that the said application has been filed at the stage of final arguments, and it is for the plaintiff to establish that the registered document is not validly executed, there being a presumption of validity and veracity in respect of a registered document. 11. In that view of the matter, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court; the petition stands dismissed. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10185 WP No. 107417 of 2024 12. In view of dismissal of the main petition, pending IA's do not survive for consideration. Hence, IA‘s stands dismissed. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41