- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49893 WP No. 7442 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 7442 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. GOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS D/O KALAPPA @ DODDAKALAPPA W/O BYRANNA TENEYUR VILLAGE BENDIGANAHALLI POST SULIBELE HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK - 560 067 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI C.M. NAGABUSHANA, ADV.) AND: 1. SRI B.K. KRISHNAPPA S/O KALAPPA @ DODDAKALAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS. 2. SRI B.K. NARAYANASWAMY S/O KALAPPA @ DODDAKALAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS. 3. SRI B.K. BACHANNA S/O KALAPPA @ DODDAKALAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS. RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT BYRASNADRA VILLAGE JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI SIDDAGHTATTA TALUK PINCODE - 562 105. CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT. 4. SMT. BACHAMMA Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49893 WP No. 7442 of 2024 W/O MUNIKRISHNAPPA D/O KALAPPA @ DODDAKALAPPA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS R/AT ATTIBELE VILLAGE SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK - 560 067 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 5. M/S EKKA VENTURES LLP 1ST FLOOR WEST WING DEPARC TRINITY NO 17 MG ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001. 6. SRI B.K. SHIVAMURTHY S/O B.K. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS AGRICULTURIST RESIDING AT BURASNADRA VILLAGE JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI SIDLAGHATTA TALUK - 562 105 CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT. 7. SMT. T.B. VARALAKSHMI W/O AMRANARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDING AT YENNANGUR VILLAGE JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI SIDLAGHATTA TALUK - 562 105. 8. SMT. B. RASHMI W/O G. PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT ISTURU VILLAGE BENDIGANAHALLI POST SULIBELE HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK - 560 067 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 9. SMT. RAJINI T B W/O RAVI KUMAR D.C AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT DINNUR VILLAGE CHENARAYAPATTANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK - 562 110 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49893 WP No. 7442 of 2024 10. SMT. SOWMYA T.B W/O N.V. RAGHU AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT NAGARENAHALLI VILLAGE BEGUR POST, SULIBELE HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK - 560 067 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 11. SRI T.B. MANOJ S/O BYRANNA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT TENAYUR VILLAGE BENDIGANAHALLI POST SULIBELE HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK - 560 067 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M. RAMASWAMY, ADV.) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE / QUASH THE ORDER DATED 04/03/2024 PASSED ON IA NO. 35 IN OS NO. 87/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIDLAGHATTA AT ANNEXURE-F. CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE IA NO. 35 FILED BY THE PETITIONIER AS PER THE ANNEXURE-E AND TO GRANT ANY RELIEFS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. The plaintiff is before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer set aside the order dated 04.03.2024 passed on I.A No.XXXV in O.S.No.87 of 2022 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Shidlaghatta. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49893 WP No. 7442 of 2024 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. Suit in O.S.No.87 of 2022 is filed before jurisdictional Court at Shidlaghatta seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property, cancellation of the Relinquishment Deed dated 17.03.2022 and for the consequential relief of permanent injunction. In the said suit, the contesting defendants have filed their written statement and opposed the suit. I.A.No.XXXV was filed on the behalf of the plaintiff under Order No.XXVI Rule 10(A) of CPC with a prayer to forward the unregistered Palupatti (Ex.P46) and the registered Sale Deed dated 12.10.1978 (Ex.P39) for the purpose of comparing the left thumb impression of Late Sri Doddakallappa, who is the father of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3. The said application was opposed by the contesting defendants by filing objection. The trial Court, vide the order impugned has rejected the said application and being aggrieved by the same, plaintiff is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that the trial Court - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49893 WP No. 7442 of 2024 has primarily rejected the application for the reason that there is a direction by this Court to dispose of the suit within a time frame. He submits that the thumb impression of Doddakalappa found in Ex.P39 Sale Deed is not in dispute. Insofar as Ex.P46 is concerned, there is a dispute with regard to execution of the said document. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 have pleaded in their written statement that Item Nos.19 and 20 of the suit schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of defendant no.1 whereas the said properties finds place in Ex.P46. Therefore, the trial Court was not justified in rejecting the application. 5. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.5 who is said to be the purchaser of the suit schedule property submits that there is no pleading on behalf of the plaintiff that Doddakalappa had succeeded to any of the suit schedule properties under Ex.P46 which is produced by a third party to the suit. The document which is produced by a third party to the suit cannot be forwarded for the purpose of comparison of the signatures or thumb impressions found in the said document. He submits that Ex.P46 is an unregistered document and though it is stated that the same is a palupatti, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49893 WP No. 7442 of 2024 in effect it is a Partition Deed which is compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act. Therefore, the said document is inadmissible in evidence. 6. Learned counsel appearing for defendant Nos.1 to 3 / respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that I.A.No.XXXV was not filed invoking the correct provisions of law. The said application ought to have been filed under Section 45 R/w Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act whereas, I.A.No.XXXV was filed under Order XXVI Rule 10(A) of CPC. He submits that there are four attesting witnesses to Ex.P46 and none of them are examined as on this date. Ex.P46 can be proved by examining the attesting witnesses and it is not necessary for comparing the signatures or thumb impressions found in the said document. Accordingly, they pray to dismiss the petition. 7. Perusal of the averments found in the plaint in O.S.No.87 of 2022 would go to show that, according to the plaintiff, the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants Nos.1 to 4. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 in their written statement have denied the contention of the plaintiff and on the other hand a specific - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49893 WP No. 7442 of 2024 averment is found in the written statement of defendant Nos.1 to 3 that Item Nos.19 and 20 of the suit schedule properties situated at Kurubarahally along with Item Nos.22 and 23 situated at Byrasandra Village are the self-acquired properties of defendant no.1 and these properties are not the joint family properties. In addition to the same, it is also contended that Item No.25 is the self-acquired property of B.K.Narayan Swamy and Item Nos.26 and 27 are the self-acquired property of defendant no.3. Based on the rival pleadings of the parties, the trial court has framed as many as 8 issues and Issue No. 1 reads as follows: "1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties of plaintiff and defendants?". 8. During the course of evidence on behalf of the plaintiff, three witnesses are examined and PW3 is said to have produced and got marked Ex.P46 which is an unregistered palupatti said to have been executed between Doddakalappa and Munikalappa, who is the father of PW3. Copy of Ex.P46 has been made available to this Court by the learned counsel for - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49893 WP No. 7442 of 2024 the petitioner and perusal of the same would go to show that certain properties found in the suit schedule, including the property at Item Nos.19 and 20 are subject matter of the said document. A specific contention has been urged on behalf of defendants nos.1 to 3 that suit Item Nos.19 and 20 are self- enquired properties of defendant no.1, whereas the said items of land are found to be subject matter of Ex.P46 which is allegedly executed between Doddakalappa and Munikalappa, who is the father of PW3. It has been specifically argued on behalf of the defendants that Ex.P46 is a disputed document. 9. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of ACHYUT AND ANOTHER V SMT. NANDA AND OTHERS - 2008 SCC ONLINE KAR 236, in almost identical circumstances in paragraph No.9 has observed as follows:- "As stated above, the suit filed by the plaintiff is for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. Respondent 3 is the elder sister of defendant 1 and plaintiff is the widow of the brother of defendant 1. The defence put forth by defendant 1 is that there has already been a partition of the family - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49893 WP No. 7442 of 2024 properties between the parties as per Ex.D1. The defendant 3 has denied her signature on Ex.D1. Whether the signature in dispute is the signature of defendant 3 or not has to be answered by an expert after comparing the same with the admitted signature. This question has to be scientifically analysed, scientifically testing the same. the burden is on defendants 1 and 2 to establish that the dispute signature is of defendant 3. Therefore, the Court below was not right in rejecting the application filed by defendants 1 and 2". 10. Similar view has been expressed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.26549 of 2018 disposed of on 28.08.2023 in the case of SMT. SWARUPA V. SMT. MANGAMMA & OTHERS and in paragraph No.9 of the said order it has been observed as follows: "9. These are disputed questions, and if the signature of Sri Muniyappa in the Agreement for Sale is denied, the forensic examination of his signature in such agreement would elucidate material on record and that would enable complete - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49893 WP No. 7442 of 2024 adjudication. As observed earlier, the petitioner may not have detailed all the circumstances in the affidavit accompanying the application, but the circumstances, as seen in the pleadings and mentioned above, would justify a conclusion that the relevance of this forensic examination is sufficiently explained. In the light of afore, this Court is of the considered opinion that justifiable reasons are established for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India". 11. Merely for the reason that the application has been filed invoking wrong provisions, the same cannot be a ground for rejection of application if it otherwise merits consideration. In the affidavit which is filed supporting I.A.XXXV, it has been specifically pleaded that during the lifetime of Doddakalappa and Munikalappa there was a oral partition of joint family properties and at the instance of panchayathdar the same was reduced into writing as per Ex.P46, in which the left thumb impression / signature of the Doddakalappa as well as Munikalappa are available. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49893 WP No. 7442 of 2024 12. Ex.P39 is an undisputed document which is a Sale Deed under which Doddakalappa has purchased certain items of the suit schedule property. Since the defendant Nos.1 to 3 have specifically pleaded that Item Nos.19 and 20 of the suit schedule property which are also subject matter of document Ex.P46, are the self-acquired properties of defendant no.1, in my considered opinion, the trial Court was not justified in rejecting I.A.No.XXXV. If an expert's opinion is received, the same would throw light on the issue which would enable the Court to effectively adjudicate the dispute between the parties. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the order impugned cannot be sustained. 13. Accordingly the following:- ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order 04.03.2024 passed on I.A No.XXXV in O.S.No.87 of 2022 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Shidlaghatta is set aside. Consequently, prayer made in I.A.No.XXXV is granted. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49893 WP No. 7442 of 2024 (iii) It is needless to state that taking into consideration the order passed by this Court in MFA No.7947 of 2022, the Trial Court shall make endeavour to expedite the trial and dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. In view of disposal of the writ petition, IA No.1 of 2025 will not survive for consideration. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32