- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43150 WP No. 7180 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 7180 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. PADMAMMA @ YASHODHA D/O RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT TIRUMALE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 159. …PETITIONER (BY SRI JAYARAJA A.T, ADV.) AND: 1. SMT. GANGAMMA W/O LATE GANGADHARAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT VADEYARAHALLI BADAVANE LAKSHMIPURA CROSS 1ST MAIN ROAD VIDYARANYAPURA POST BENGALURU - 560 097. 2. SRI GANESH S/O LATE GANGAGHARAIAH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT VADEYARAHALLI BADAVANE LAKSHMIPURA CROSS 1ST MAIN ROAD VIDYARNYAPURA POST BENGALURU - 560 097. 3. SMT. PUSHPALATHA W/O LATE NAGARAJU D/O LATE GANGADHARAIAH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT NO THIRUMALE VILLAGE KALIYAPPA SITE MUNESHWRA BADAVANE 2ND WARD KASABA HOBLI MAGADI TOWN RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 159. Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43150 WP No. 7180 of 2024 4. SMT. MALA W/O GOPAL D/O LATE GANGHARAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT LINGENAHALLI VILLAGE MAHADEVAPURA POST KASABA HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI KRISHNAMURTHY M.R, ADV.) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15/02/2024 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MAGADI IN OS NO. 147/2014, VIDE ANNEXURE-A. 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 has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set aside the order dated 15.02.2024 passed on I.A.No.XII filed in O.S.No.147 of 2014 by the Court of II Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Magadi. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The petitioner herein has filed O.S.No.147 of 2014 before the jurisdictional Civil Court at Magadi seeking the relief of specific performance of agreement for sale dated 29.09.2011. According to the plaintiff, defendant no.1 Smt. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43150 WP No. 7180 of 2024 Gangamma and her husband, late Gangadaraiah, are the persons who have executed the aforesaid sale agreement in her favour and they are the signatories to the said document. Defendant nos. 2 to 4 are the children of Smt. Gangamma and her husband, late Gangadaraiah. In the said suit, defendants have filed a detailed written statement opposing the suit claim and it is contended on behalf of the defendants that defendant no.1 and her husband have not executed the sale agreement dated 29.09.2011 and they are not the signatories to the said document. It is under these circumstances, I.A.No.XII was filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XXVI Rule 10-A of CPC read with Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, with a prayer to refer the disputed signatures of defendant no.1 and her husband, late Gangadaraiah, found in the sale agreement dated 29.09.2011, to a handwriting expert, for the purpose of comparing the said disputed signatures with the admitted signatures of defendant no.1 Gangamma and her husband late Gangadaraiah. The said application was opposed by the defendants by filing objections and the trial Court vide the impugned order has rejected the said application and being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is before this Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43150 WP No. 7180 of 2024 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that admitted signatures of defendant no.1 Gangamma is available on record, though the admitted signatures of her husband late Gangadaraiah is not available. Therefore, if the prayer made in I.A.No.XII insofar as it relates to the disputed signatures of defendant no.1 Smt. Gangamma is granted, the petitioner will be satisfied. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents have opposed the prayer made in the petition. He submits, a plain comparison of the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures of defendant no.1 would clearly go to show that there is a lot of variance and the Court itself can compare the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures by exercising its powers under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. 6. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that defendant no.1 and her late husband have executed an agreement for sale dated 29.09.2011 in her favour after having received advance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- out of the total - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43150 WP No. 7180 of 2024 sale consideration of Rs.1,60,000/- in respect of the suit schedule property. Defendants in their written statement have specifically denied the execution of the agreement for sale and the signatures found in the said document were also disputed. It is under these circumstances, an application is filed on behalf of the plaintiff to refer the disputed signatures found in the sale agreement dated 29.09.2011 (Ex.P1) to the handwriting expert with the admitted signatures found on record. Undisputedly, the admitted signatures of defendant no.1 is available on the written statement filed on behalf of the defendants and also in the vakalath filed before the trial Court. 7. It is trite that in normal circumstances, the Courts should not venture to compare the handwriting or signatures of the parties and the said task has to be referred to the expert who would be in a better position to compare the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures of the party and submit a report which would be of assistance to the Courts to efficiently adjudicate the dispute between the parties. 8. The trial Court has rejected the application primarily for the reason that admitted signature of the husband of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43150 WP No. 7180 of 2024 defendant no.1 is not available on record and therefore the prayer made in the application cannot be granted. In my considered opinion, though the admitted signatures of the husband of the defendant no.1 is not available before the tiral Court, the admitted signatures of defendant no.1 are very much available and therefore the application filed on behalf of the plaintiff insofar as it relates to referring the disputed signatures of defendant no.1 with her admitted signatures, should have been granted. The trial Court was not justified in rejecting the application in its entirety. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that order impugned is not sustainable. 9. Accordingly, the following ORDER (i) Writ petition is partly allowed. (ii) The order dated 15.02.2024 passed on I.A.No.XII in O.S.No.147 of 2014 by the Court of II Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Magadi is set aside and consequently the prayer made in the said application is partly granted. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43150 WP No. 7180 of 2024 (iii) The trial Court is directed to refer the disputed signatures of defendant no.1 found in the sale agreement (Ex.P.1) dated 29.09.2011 to a handwriting expert to compare the same with the admitted signatures of defendant no.1 found in her written statement and vakalath filed before the trial Court and submit a report Peding IAs' do not survive for consideration and accordingly, the same are disposed of. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23