- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18337 WP No. 116275 of 2019 C/W WP No. 116274 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 116275 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 116274 OF 2019 IN W.P.NO.116275/2019 BETWEEN: MAHESH S/O. SHIVAPUTRA @ SHIVAPUTRAPPA BELLAD, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O: MARATHA COLONY ROAD, NEAR DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR HOSTEL, DHARWAD-580008. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DAYANAND M. BANDI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MALLANAGOUDA S/O. KALLANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 98, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHIKKAMALLIGAWAD VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST: DHARWAD-580021. 2. SHIVAPUTRA @ SHIVAPUTRAPPA S/O. GURAPPA BELLAD, AGE: 78, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O: GOURI KRUPA, MARATHA COLONY ROAD, Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.12.18 15:23:22 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18337 WP No. 116275 of 2019 C/W WP No. 116274 of 2019 DHARWAD-580008. 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KIADB, LAKAMANAHALLI, P.B. ROAD, DHARWAD. 4. THE KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS HOUSING COMMISSIONER, KARWAR ROAD, HUBBALLI-580021. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD, SAMANVAYA KATCHERI, HUBBALLI-580021. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALLIGAWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. I.C. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5; SRI. PAVAN B. DODDATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR IN THE FORM OF DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 29.11.2019 PASSED BY THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, DHARWAD ON INTERIM APPLICATION NO.20 IN O.S.NO.206/2006 VIDE ANNEXURE "H" TO THE WRIT PETITION AND TO ALLOW THE I.A.NO.20 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.S.NO.206/2006 AS PRAYED IN THE SAME IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN W.P.NO.116274/2019 BETWEEN: MAHESH S/O. SHIVAPUTRA @ SHIVAPUTRAPPA BELLAD, AGE: 43 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18337 WP No. 116275 of 2019 C/W WP No. 116274 of 2019 OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O: MARATHA COLONY ROAD, NEAR DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR HOSTEL, DHARWAD-580008. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DAYANAND M. BANDI, ADVOCATE) AND: KALLANAGOUDA S/O. NINGANAGOUDA PATIL, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS, 1. RAMANAGOUDA S/O. KALLANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 2. BASANAGOUDA S/O. KALLANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 3. YALLANAGOUDA S/O KALLANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 4. SHIVANAGOUDA S/O KALLANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 5. SMT. ANNAPURNA W/O BASANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 29 YEARS, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18337 WP No. 116275 of 2019 C/W WP No. 116274 of 2019 OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, 6. NINGANAGOUDA S/O SIDDANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 6 ARE RESIDENTS OF HIREMALLIGAWAD VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST: DHARWAD-580026. 7. SHIVAPUTRA @ SHIVAPUTRAPPA S/O. GURAPPA BELLAD, AGE: 78, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O: GOURI KRUPA, MARATHA COLONY ROAD, DHARWAD-580008. 8. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KIADB, LAKAMANAHALLI, P.B. ROAD, DHARWAD-580004. 9. THE KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS: HOUSING COMMISSIONER, KARWAR ROAD, HUBBALLI-580021. 10. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD, SAMANVAYA KATCHERI, HUBBALLI-580021. 11. PRASHENT S/O. SHIVAPUTRAPPA BELLAD, AGE: 52 YEARS, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18337 WP No. 116275 of 2019 C/W WP No. 116274 of 2019 OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O: MARATHA COLONY ROAD, NEAR DR.AMBEDKAR HOSTEL, DHARWAD-580008. 12. SHANTAVVA W/O. FAKKIRAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 59, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. HIREMALLIGAWAD, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD-580008. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. I.C. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R9 & R10; SRI. PAVAN B. DODDATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R8; NOTICE TO R1, R2, R4, R7 & R11 IS SERVED; NOTICE TO R5 & R6 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR IN THE FORM OF DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 29.11.2019 PASSED BY THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, DHARWAD ON INTERIM APPLICATION NO.18 IN O.S.NO.210/2006 VIDE ANNEXURE "H" TO THE WRIT PETITION AND TO ALLOW THE I.A.NO.18 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.S.NO.210/2006 AS PRAYED IN THE SAME IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THESE PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18337 WP No. 116275 of 2019 C/W WP No. 116274 of 2019 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) These petitions are filed assailing the order dated 29.11.2019 in O.S. No.206/2006 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Dharwad rejecting the plaintiffs application to refer the documents in question for forensic experts opinion on the defendants disputed signature. That application is rejected on the premise that the Court is competent to give an opinion on the disputed signature. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs would urge that the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 mandates the best evidence to be adduced by the parties to substantiate the claim. To substantiate the contention that the defendant has signed the document on which the plaintiff has based his suit, the plaintiff has filed an application for expert's opinion and same is objected by the defendant. It is his further contention that the Court is not an expert when it comes to handwriting and it is always desirable that an expert's opinion be placed on record which would enable the Court to adjudicate the controversy. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18337 WP No. 116275 of 2019 C/W WP No. 116274 of 2019 3. Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants would urge that the Trial Court has exercised its discretion in rejecting the application on the premise that it is competent to compare the signature. It is his submission that the Trial Court has taken this view after comparing the disputed signature and the admitted signature and if, the Court is of the view that it is in a position to compare the signature and form an opinion, the said view cannot be disturbed in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 4. In addition, it is also urged by the counsel for respondents that the document in question is not properly stamped and it is inadmissible in evidence and the same is unregistered as well. Thus, the plaintiff cannot seek to refer the said document for forensic expert's opinion as the said document cannot be looked into for any purpose, is the submission. 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner by way of reply would contend that the document is already admitted in evidence without there being any objection, as such the defendants/respondents cannot raise a contention that the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18337 WP No. 116275 of 2019 C/W WP No. 116274 of 2019 document is not properly stamped and that cannot be the basis to reject the application for appointment of expert to examine the disputed signature. 6. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 7. The interpretation of law was that once a document is admitted in evidence, it cannot be held that the document is not properly stamped. The question relating to the insufficiency of the stamp duty on a document cannot be raised in the same proceeding has been negated by the Apex Court in G.M. Shahul Hameed v. Jayanthi R. Hegde1. The Apex Court has held that in case the document is found to be not sufficiently stamped and the same is marked without any objection, the power of the Court to look into the question relating to the sufficiency of the stamp is not taken away. Once it is brought to the notice of the Court that the document is not properly stamped, the Court can always call upon the party to explain as to whether the document is sufficiently stamped or not and in case, it is found 1 (2024) 7 SCC 719 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18337 WP No. 116275 of 2019 C/W WP No. 116274 of 2019 that the document is not properly stamped, the Court has the power to impound the document and to refer it to the competent authority for determination of stamp duty and penalty payable. 8. As far as the contention relating to the finding of the Court that it is competent to give a finding on the disputed signature, the Court is of the view that it is always desirable to have the expert's opinion when it comes to the disputed signature and the Trial Court is not justified in dismissing the application and the plaintiff has sought the expert's opinion to substantiate his contention that the document is signed by the defendants as the defendants have disputed the signature. However, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, the document can be sent to forensic expert's opinion only after the Court determines the question as to whether the document is properly stamped or not. 9. Hence the following: ORDER (i) Writ Petitions are allowed. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18337 WP No. 116275 of 2019 C/W WP No. 116274 of 2019 (ii) The impugned order dated 29.11.2019 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Dharwad on interim application No.20 in O.S.No.206/2010 is set aside. (iii) The application for appointment of Forensic Expert is allowed. (iv) The document in question shall be referred to the Forensic Expert's opinion subject to the plaintiff/petitioner paying deficit stamp duty or penalty if any, payable on the document. (v) Before referring the document for the expert's opinion, the Court shall adjudicate the question as to whether the document is properly stamped or not. (vi) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion as to whether the document is sufficiently stamped or insufficiently stamped. (vi) Since the suit is of the year 2006, parties shall operate for early disposal of the suit. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN CT-MCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 38