- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17371 W.P. No.6388/2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.6388/2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. ERAMMA AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS DECEASED REP. BY LR'S. 1(a) MADDURAPPA S/O LATE KAKAPPA AND LATE EERAMMA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT. BEGIHALLI, JIGANI HOBLI BENGALURU-560105. 1(b) YALLAMMA D/O LATE KAKAPPA AND LATE ERAMMA W/O KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT. NO.40, 12TH CROSS BANNERGHATTA ROAD PILLAGANAHALLI BENGALURU SOUTH-560083. 1(c) VENKATALAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE KAKAPPA AND LATE ERAMMA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT. KOPPA GATE, JIGANI HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DIST-560105. 1(d) YALLAMMA D/O LATE KAKAPPA AND Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17371 W.P. No.6388/2020 LATE ERAMMA W/O RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT. NO.45, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT. 1(e) RENUKA D/O LATE KAKAPPA AND LATE ERAMMA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT. KOPPA GATE, JIGANI HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT. REP. THEIR GPA HOLDER OF LR'S FROM 1(a) TO (e) RAMU S/O THANAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT. BILEKAHALLI, 5TH CROSS BEGUR HOBLI, BENNERGHATTA ROAD BENGALURU-560076. 2. SRI. NAGARAJU @ BANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS S/O LATE MARIHUCHAPPA R/AT NO. NANJAPURA VILLAGE JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGLAURU URBAN DISTRICT-562106. 3. SMT. GOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS D/O LATE MARIHUCHAPPA R/AT ANANTHANAGARA HUSKUR GATE, ATTIBELE HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT. 4. HOSANNA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17371 W.P. No.6388/2020 S/O LATE MARIHUCHAPPA R/AT NO.NANJAPURA VILLAGE JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 562106. 5. VEERABHADRAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS S/O LATE MARIHUCHAPPA R/AT NO.NANJAPURA VILLAGE JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562106. 6. SMT. SHANTHAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS D/O LATE MARIHUCHAPPA R/AT NO.KUMBARANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562106. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K. NARASIMHA MURTHY, ADV., FOR SRI. PRASHANTH M.M. ADV., FOR LR'S OF DECEASED PETITIONER IN IA 1/2021) AND: 1. SRI. M.Y. MUNIRAJU S/O LATE YALLAPPA R/AT. SIDIHOSKOTE VILLAGE JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560105. 2. SMT. AMMAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS W/O LATE MUNIVENKATA REDDY R/AT NO.NANJAPURA VILLAGE JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562106. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17371 W.P. No.6388/2020 3. MUNI REDDY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O LATE MUNIVENKATA REDDY R/AT NO.NANJAPURA VILLAGE JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562106. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NAGA REDDY V, ADV., FOR R1 NOTICE TO R3 D/W R3 TREATED AS LR'S OF DECEASED R2) - - - THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS, OS.NO.466/2012 PENDING BEFORE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANEKAL, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. QUASH THE ORDER DT 01.02.2020 PASSED ON THE APPLICATION FILED U/S 90 OF EVIDENCE ACT IN O.S.NO.466/2012 PENDING BEFORE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANEKAL, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY PETITIONERS U/S 90 OF EVIDENCE ACT & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed challenging the order dated 01.02.2020 passed in O.S.No.466/2012 by the Senior Civil Judge, Anekal, Bengaluru Rural District (for short, 'the Trial Court'). - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17371 W.P. No.6388/2020 2. Sri.K.Narasimha Murthy, learned counsel for Sri.Prashanth M.M., learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner No.1 is the defendant No.1 in a suit filed by the respondent No.1-plaintiff for issuance of probate and in the said suit, the defendant No.1 filed an application under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, 'the Evidence Act'), and sought to mark the original deed of usufructuary mortgage dated 01.04.1938 which came to be rejected by the Trial Court solely on the ground that the said document is unregistered. It is submitted that the application filed by the defendant No.1 indicates that the defendant No.1 is in possession of the property in question and to prove the possession, the said document ought to have been accepted as the same would fall within the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short, 'the Registration Act'). Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17371 W.P. No.6388/2020 3. Per contra, Sri.Nagareddy V, learned counsel for the respondent No.1-plaintiff supports the impugned order of the Trial Court and the very filing of the application under Section 90 of the Evidence Act is defective as the petitioner is required to produce the said document along with proper application seeking for marking and then can seek for consideration as a 30 year old document. It is submitted that admittedly, the alleged document of usufructuary mortgage is unregistered which is required to be registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act and the Trial Court was fully justified in rejecting the application. Lastly, he submits that the written statement of the petitioner indicates that they are claiming their title based on such instrument and if such an application is allowed and the document is ordered to be accepted and marked in evidence, it would be contrary to Section 49 of the Registration Act. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17371 W.P. No.6388/2020 4. At this stage, it is submitted at the Bar that the arguments in the suit is concluded and the matter is posted for judgment. In view of the aforesaid statement and considering the stage of the proceedings before the Trial Court, I am of the considered view that it would not be appropriate to exercise the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which is discretionary and equitable. It is open for the petitioner to raise the aforesaid ground in the appeal in the event the Trial Court decrees the suit. 5. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18