- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49367 WP No. 15521 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 15521 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SIDDE GOWDA @ BELI GOWDA S/O SHIVALINGE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT ABBURDODDI VILLAGE CHANNAPATNA TALUK - 571 501. 1a S. SHIVANNA S/O SIDDEGOWDA @ BELIGOWDA AGED 47 YEARS. 1b S. JAYAKUMAR S/O SIDDEGWDA @ BELIGOWDA AGED 35 YEARS. BOTH ARE R/AT ABBUR DODDI VILLAGE, CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGAR DIST - 571 501. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI GOPALA H.M, ADV.) AND: 1. 2. 2a SIDDARAJU S/O SIDDEGOWDA @ NATHAGOWDA AGED 46 YEARS. SIDDARAMU SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS SMT. CHANDRAMMA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS W/O LATE SIDDARAMU. 2b SUNIL KUMAR A S S/O LATE SIDDARAMU Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49367 WP No. 15521 of 2021 2b(a) SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS. SMT. AISHWARAYA S AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS W/O SUNIL KUMAR A.S. 2b(b) THANISKA S GOWDA AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER GUARDIAN MOTHER AISHWARAYA P 2c SOWMYA A.S AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS D/O SIDDARAMU. RESPONDENT NO.1 & 2 (a) 2(b)(a) 2(b)(b), 2(c) ALL ARE RESIDING AT ABBURDODDI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHANNAPATNA TALUK. 3. SMT. SANNAMMA W/O KARE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT RAMPURA VILLAGE MALUR HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK - 571 501. 4. 4a LINGARAJU SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS SMT. KAVITHA W/O LATE LINGARAJU AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS. RESPONDENTS 4(a) & 5 ARE R/AT KANNASANDRA, MOGENAHALLI CHANNAPATNA TALUK - 571 501. 5. RAMESH S/O MARIKALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS S/O BHADREGOWDA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49367 WP No. 15521 of 2021 6. 6a SMT THIMMAMMA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS SRI PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS S/O BHADREGOWDA. 6b VINOD KUMAR AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS S/O BHADREGOWDA. 6c DEVARAJU AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O BHADREGOWDA. 6d. CHIKKAIDE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O BHADREGOWDA. 6e. VEERABHADRA AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA. 6f. KARTHIK AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA. 6e & f ARE SINCE MINORS REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN, SRI VINOD KUMAR. RESPONDENTS 6a TO f ALL ARE RESIDING AT ABBURDODDI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK- 571 501. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.R. NAGARAJA, ADV., FOR SRI V. VISWANTH SHETTY, ADV., FOR R-1; R-2(a), R-2(b) (a-c), R-2(b)(b) V/O DTD: 04.11.2025 IS MINOR REP. BY HER MOTHER R-2 B(a) NOTICE TO R-2(a), R-2(b), (A-C) R-3, R-3(a) R-4(a), R-5 & R-6 (A-F) STANDS D/W V/O DTD:08.11.2021) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DT - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49367 WP No. 15521 of 2021 05.03.2021, PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAPATNA, ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.5 U/S 151 OF CPC, FILED BY THE R-1 CLAIMING THE SHARE OF DECEASED R-2 SMT VENKTAMMA, ON THE BASIS OF THE ALLEGED WILL VIDE ORDER ANNEXURE-J IN FDP NO.1/2008. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. Petitioner is before this Court in this petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India with a prayer to set aside the order 05.03.2021 passed on I.A.No.V in FDP No.1 of 2008 by the Court of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Channapatna. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The petitioners in FDP No.1 of 2008 had filed I.A.No.V under Section 151 of CPC praying to allot the share of respondent no.2 in the said proceedings namely Smt. Venkatamma claiming that she had executed a registered Will dated 03.06.2010 in favour of the petitioner No.1, namely Sri Siddaraju. The petitioner, who is respondent no.1 in FDP No.1 of 2008, had opposed the prayer made in I.A.No.V contending - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49367 WP No. 15521 of 2021 that he is the adopted son of respondent no.2 Smt. Venkatamma and after her death, he being her legal heir is entitled to her share in the suit schedule property. He also contended that she had executed a registered Will dated 13.08.1969 in his favour. The trial Court, vide the order impugned has allowed I.A.No.V and has allotted the share of deceased respondent no. 2, Smt. Venkatamma, in favour of the petitioner No.1 in FDP No.1/2008, namely Sri Siddaraju, on the basis of the registered Will dated 03.06.2010 executed by deceased Smt. Venkatamma in his favour. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner, who is respondent no.1 in FDP No.1 of 2008, is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that trial Court having permitted petitioners, in FDP No. 1 of 2008 to examine PWs.1 to 3 on their behalf, has not permitted the respondent no.1 in the said proceedings, who is the petitioner herein, to lead his evidence. Therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has argued in support of the impugned order. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49367 WP No. 15521 of 2021 6. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that after the petitioner herein, who is respondent no.1 in FDP No.1 of 2008, had filed his objections to I.A.No.V, the trial Court had ordered to hold an enquiry on I.A.No.V and petitioner no.1 in FDP No.1 of 2008 had examined himself as PW.1 and had got marked two documents as Exs.P1 and 2. The scribe and attesting witness of the will dated 03.06.2010 were examined as PW2 and PW3. Respondent no.1 in FDP No.1 of 2008, who had filed his objections to I.A.No.V, had not cross- examined PW1 to PW3. Thereafter, the trial Court had allowed I.A.No.V by order dated 18.04.2015. The said order was questioned by petitioner/respondent no.1 in FDP No.1 of 2008 before this Court in W.P.No.18674 of 2015 and W.P.No.46582 of 2015, which were allowed and the petitioner herein was permitted to cross-examine PW1(Siddaraju) on or before 12.07.2016 subject to payment of cost of ₹5,000/-. Thereafter, in compliance of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.18674 of 2015 connected with W.P.No.46582 of 2015. PW1 was not cross-examined by the petitioner herein completely on 26.07.2016 on that day. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49367 WP No. 15521 of 2021 7. An application was thereafter filed on behalf of the petitioner herein under Section 151 of CPC to recall PWs.2 and 3 and the said application was allowed and PWs.2 & 3 were recalled for cross-examination. In spite of granting sufficient opportunity, the petitioner herein had not cross-examined PWs.2 and PW3. Therefore, the trial court had taken the cross examination of PWs.2 & as nil. Subsequently, an application under Section 151 of CPC was filed to reopen the case and recall PWs.2 and 3. The same was dismissed by the trial Court on 07.03.2018 and the said order was questioned by the petitioner herein before this Court in W.P.No.1633 of 2018 and W.P.No.31364 of 2018, which was dismissed by this Court on 03.09.2018. The said order passed by this Court is said to have been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 8. The order dated 07.03.2018 which was challenged in W.P.No.16333 of 2018 and W.P.No.31364 of 2018 reads as follows. "7. I have gone through the materials on record. As per the direction of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.Nos.18674/15 and 46582/15 the PW.1 is recalled for the cross-examination and accordingly cross- examined by the respondent. After completion of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49367 WP No. 15521 of 2021 cross-examination of the PW.1 fully on 26.7.2016, on that day the counsel for the respondent has filed I.A. u/Sec.151 of CPC for recall of PWs.2 & 3 and thereafter for objections and for other reasons the case adjourned on several dates and after hearing both sides this court passed the orders on the said I.A. alongwith the another I.A. on 12.10.2017 by recalling the PWs.2 & 3 for the cross-examination and put a stage for the cross- examination of PWs.2 & 3 on 28.10.2017 but on that day the PWs.2 and 3 were absent and after issuance of witness summons the PWs.2 & 3 are present on 20.1.2018 but the counsel for the respondent No.1 has sought time simply without any grounds and hence case adjourned on cost of Rs.200/- each to the PWs.2 & 3 and case adjourned for cross of PWs.2 and 3 on 16.2.2018 but on that day also the counsel for the respondent prayed time without any genuine reasons and also not paid the cost to the PWs.2 and 3 who were present before the court. The attitude of the respondent shows that he is only willing to drag the case proceedings and this case being old case and as already sufficient opportunity is given and hence this court does not find any reasons to allow these applications and fit to WP Nos.16333 & 31364/2018 dismiss these applications on imposing cost. Therefore, I answer this point in the negative and proceed to pass the following; REASONS 8. The I.As. filed by the respondent u/Sec.151 of CPC for reopening the case and recall of the PWs.2 & 3 is dismissed on cost of Rs.500/- payable to the petitioner. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49367 WP No. 15521 of 2021 For hearing on the main petition call by 21.3.2018.” 9. From a perusal of the aforesaid order, it is very clear that the trial Court having dismissed the application filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 151 of CPC to reopen and recall PWs.2 and 3 with costs, had posted the matter for hearing on the main petition. Therefore, it is apparent that no opportunity was granted by the trial Court in the said order dated 07.03.2018 for leading evidence on behalf of the petitioner. The said order dated 07.03.2018 has been confirmed in its entirety by this Court in W.P.No.16333 and W.P.No. 31364 of 2018 which was dismissed by this Court on 03.09.2018 and it is not the dispute that the order passed by this Court has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The trial Court thereafter has proceeded to hear the arguments addressed on both sides on I.A.No.V and considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record has allowed I.A.No.V filed in FDP No.1 of 2008. 10. In view of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.1633 of 2018 connected with W.P.No.31364 of 2018, which is confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is not open - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49367 WP No. 15521 of 2021 for this Court to reopen the case and hold that the petitioner is required to be granted an opportunity to lead evidence when the order which was challenged in W.P.No.16333 and W.P.No.31364 of 2018 would go to show that at the said stage itself such an opportunity was not given to the respondent herein. Moreover, the burden to prove the will dated 03.06.2010 said to have been executed by respondent no.2 Smt. Venkatamma is only on the petitioner in FDP No.1 of 2008 and therefore I do not find any merit in the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner herein that the Trial Court ought to have granted an opportunity to him to lead his evidence. Under these circumstances, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Pending IAs' do not survive for consideration and accordingly the same are disposed of. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46