- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9065 WP No. 24691 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 24691 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI K B RAJASHEKAR S/O SRI BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.2, GOWRAMMA BUILDING BEHIND BISHOP CONVENT HEGGANAHLALI CROSS BENGALURU - 560 091. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BHARGAV G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SULOCHANA SINGH W/O SRI MANJUNATH SINGH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NO.816, 61ST CROSS, BASHYAM CIRCLE, 5TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010 2. SMT.JAMUNA BAI W/O GANAGARRAM SINGH SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY HER LRS SRI GANGARAM SINGH S/O LATE SHYAM SINGH AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9065 WP No. 24691 of 2025 3. SRI BADRINATH SINGH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. 4. SMT NANDA BAI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NO.40, N.P.LANE COTTONPETE BENGALURU - 560 053 5. SRI NAGARAJU S/O LATE MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT C/O SMT MANGATHAYAMMA NO 81, 2ND CROSS CAUVERY LAYOUT NAGARABHAVI MAIN ROAD VIJAYANAGARA BENGALURU - 560 040. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S VISWESWARAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 TO R4; Vide order dated 27.01.2026, notice to R5 is dispensed with) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (I) CALL FOR RECORDS (II) ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT/ORDER QUASHING ANNEXURE-A DATED 17.06.2025 ON I.A.NO.31 AN APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 U/O 26 R 10 A R/W SEC.45 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 AND R/W SEC.151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 IN O.S NO. 1095/2010 PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, ETC., - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9065 WP No. 24691 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the defendant No.1 in O.S.No.1095 of 2010 is directed against the impugned order dated 17.06.2025 passed on I.A.No.31, whereby the said application filed by the respondents/plaintiffs under Order XXVI Rule 10(A) read with Section 45 of the Evidence Act, 1872 to refer the disputed signatures of the plaintiffs for comparison with their admitted signatures was allowed by the Trial Court by holding as under: "The plaintiffs have filed above IA praying to refer the disputed signature and thumb impression appearing in Ex.D3- sale deed dated 30.06.2006 with the admitted signature, thumb impression of the plaintiffs No.1 & 2 in Ex.D2- sale deed dated 05.04.1993 and the plaint and the disputed photographs of plaintiffs No.1 & 2 in Ex.D3 with the admitted photographs of the plaintiffs as well as disputed signatures of the witnesses in column No.3 with the admitted signatures of Sri Manjunath Singh. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9065 WP No. 24691 of 2025 2. Along with the above IA, the plaintiff No.1 sworn to an affidavit that that plaintiff No.2 is the sister of plaintiff No.1. That the plaintiffs No.1 & 2 are the absolute owners of the suit property as they have purchased the suit property under the registered sale deed dated 05.04.1993. But the defendants No.1 & 2 without having any manner of right over the suit property, with an intention to knock of the suit property, by playing fraud, created and concocted the sale deed dated 30.06.2006 by forging the signatures and thumb impressions of the plaintiffs through some strangers. Thereafter the defendant No.1 also created the sale deed dated 19.10.2006. That the plaintiffs have filed the present suit to declare that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit property and cancellation of the sale deed dated 30.06.2006 and 19.10.2006, since the plaintiffs are disputing the signatures and thumb impressions and photographs appearing in the sale deed dated 05.04.1993. Therefore to ascertain the genuineness of the signature, thumb impression and photographs, it is necessary to send the said documents for the opinion of the expert. Hence sought for allow the above IA. 3. The defendant No.2 has filed objection to above IA, contending that the application filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable as the application is filed at the belated stage only to fill up the lacuna. It is further stated by the defendant No.1 that the plaintiffs are not the genuine parties and the suit is filed at the instance of Pw2. Therefore comparing the signatures, thumb impressions of the plaintiffs with the said documents does not serve any purpose. Hence sought for rejection of above IA. 4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for plaintiffs and defendants. Perused the materials before the court. 5. After hearing the arguments and on going through the materials before the court, the following points arise for consideration of the court: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9065 WP No. 24691 of 2025 POINTS 1) Whether it is necessary to refer the above stated documents for the opinion of the expert as sought in the above IA? 2) What order? 6. Answers to the above points are as follows: Point No. 1: In the Affirmative Point No. 2: As per final order R E A S O N S 7. Point No.1:- The present suit is filed by the plaintiffs claiming that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit property by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 05.04.1993. it is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants No.1 & 2 colluding with each other, created and concocted the registered sale deed dated 30.06.2006 in respect of the suit property by forging the signatures and thumb impressions of the plaintiffs No.1 & 2 by impersonation through other ladies. It is further case of the plaintiffs that after the above said sale deed been obtained, the defendant No.1 also got created the sale deed dated 19.10.2006. Therefore the plaintiffs have come up with the present suit. 8. The defendants No.1 & 2 in their written statement have denied entire case of the plaintiffs and contended that by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 30.096.2006, the defendant No.2 became the absolute owner of the suit property and thereafter the defendant No.2 has alienated the suit property in favour of the defendant No.1 as per the registered sale deed dated 19.10.2006. 9. It is to be noted that both parties have lead their evidence. After completion of the evidence of both parties, the plaintiffs have filed - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9065 WP No. 24691 of 2025 present application to refer the registered original sale deed dated 30.06.2006 to the handwriting expert to compare the disputed signatures, thumb impressions appearing in the sale deed and the signature of witnesses with the admitted signatures and thumb impressions of the plaintiffs appearing in the original sale deed dated 05.04.1993 and the plaint. 10. Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act provides that opinion of the hand writing expert is relevant and Order XXVI Rule 10(A) of CPC empowers the court to issue the commission for scientific investigation when the court may if it thinks it necessary or expedient in the interest of justice to do. As noted above, the core issue in present suit is whether the signatures, thumb impressions appearing in the original sale deed dated 30.06.2006 are that of the signatures, thumb impressions of plaintiffs No.1 & 2. Though the defendant No.1 contended that the plaintiffs before the court are not the genuine parties or in other word plaintiffs are not in fact Smt. Sulochana Singh and Smt. Jamuna Bai. However in the written statement no such contention was taken. Regardless of that, as stated above, the core issue in the suit revolves around the genuineness of signatures, thumb impressions of appearing in the sale deed dated 30.06.2006 and the evidence before the court appears to be does not through sufficient light on the issue. Which necessitate to obtain the opinion of the expert. Under such circumstances, the court deem it necessary to refer the disputed signatures, thumb impressions appearing in the sale deed dated 30.06.2006 to be compared with the signatures, thumb impression appearing in the sale deed dated 05.04.1993. In view of the same, point No.1 is answered in Affirmative. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9065 WP No. 24691 of 2025 11. Point No.2:- In view of discussion made on point No.1, the court pass following: O R D E R IA.No.XXXI filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXVI Rule 10(A) read with Section 45 of Evidence Act and read with Section 151 of CPC is allowed. Consequently, the original sale deed dated 05.04.1993 and original sale deed dated 30.06.2006 are referred to the Hand writing expert to compare the disputed signatures and thumb impressions purported to be of Sulochana Singh and Smt. Januma Bai in the original sale deed dated 30.06.2006 with admitted signature and thumb impression of Smt. Sulochana Singh and Smt.Jamuna Bai appearing in the original sale deed dated 05.04.1993 and plaint and to submit report. Both parties are directed to suggest the name of Hand-writing expert. Fee of Hand-writing expert is fixed at Rs.7,000/- tentatively payable by plaintiffs. 2. Upon re-appreciation, re-evaluation and re- consideration of the entire material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity, nor can the same be said to be capricious or perverse or as having resulted in miscarriage of justice, warranting interference by this Court, in the exercise of its - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9065 WP No. 24691 of 2025 jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held in the case of (i) Radhey Shyam & others Vs. Chhabi Nath & others (2015) 5 SCC 423 (ii) K.P.Natarajan & others Vs. Muthalammal & others AIR 2021 SC 3443 (iii) Mohammed Ali Vs. Jaya (2022) 10 SCC 477. At any rate, since the petitioner would be entitled to file memo of instructions before the Court Commissioner as well as objections, if any, to the report of the Court Commissioner and examine/cross-examine him, if he so intends, it cannot be said that any prejudice would be caused to the petitioner by the impugned order and as such, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER i) Petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. ii) The Trial Court is directed to refer the matter to the "Truth Labs", Door No 28/2, 2nd Floor, Primus One Building, Above Yes Bank, Siddapura Whitefield Main - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9065 WP No. 24691 of 2025 Road, Whitefield, Bengaluru - 560 066, Karnataka, who are Handwriting/Fingerprint Experts and secure a report as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE DH List No.: 3 Sl No.: 66