- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25968 WP No. 11327 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 11327 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. B.K.GANESH, S/O LATE KORAGAPPA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, KUMBUR VILLAGE, SOMWARPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 251. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHANDRANATH ARIGA K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. B.K. KRISHNAPPA, S/O LATE KORAGAPPA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, NO.130-C, S.B.M. LAYOUT, BOGADI, RAMACHANDRANAGAR, MYSORE - 570 026. 2. SMT. B.K.YAMUNA, W/O B.M. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, KARKALLI ROAD, MASAGODU VILLAGE, SOMWARPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 236. Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25968 WP No. 11327 of 2020 3. SMT. B.K.LALITHA, W/O ANNI POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, BELLAKERE, KYAMANHALLI VILLAGE, SAKLESHPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 165. 4. SMT. B.K.PUSHPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, D/O B.K.KRISHNAPPA, 5. MISS. B.K. SHOBHA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, D/O D.K.KRISHNAPPA 6. SMT. K. RANJANA, W/O B.K. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, THE ADDRESS OF R4 TO R6 ARE NO.130-C, S.B.M. LAYOUT, BOGADI, RAMACHANDRANAGAR, MYSORE - 570 026. 7. MISS. K. NIVEDHITHA, D/O B.K. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, NO.130-C, S.B.M. LAYOUT, BOGADI, RAMACHANDRANAGAR, MYSORE - 570 026. 8. MASTER K. NIRIKSHA, S/O B.K. KRISHNAPPA, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25968 WP No. 11327 of 2020 AGED 9 YEARS, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN B.K. KRISHNAPPA, S/O LATE KORAGAPPA POOJARY, AGED 55 YEARS, NO.130-C, S.B.M. LAYOUT, BOGADI, RAMACHANDRANAGAR, MYSORE - 570 026. 9. B.K. BABU, S/O LATE KORAGAPPA POOJARY, AGED 51 YEARS, CHOWDLU VILLAGE, OPPOSITE TO SANDIPINI SCHOOL, SOMWARPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 236. 10. SMT. NAZEEMUNNISA, W/O A. SATTAR KHAN, AGED 41 YEARS, KUMBUR VILLAGE, SOMWARPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 251. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHINNAPPA GOWDA D.G., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R6 - R8; R9, R10 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; NOTICE TO R2 TO R5 - DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 18.06.2025) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN O.S.NO.11/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25968 WP No. 11327 of 2020 CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SOMWARPET; QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14.1.2020 ON I.A. NO.X IN O.S.NO.11/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SOMWARPET (ANNEXURE - F) AND 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 14.01.2020 passed on IA No.X in O.S.No.11 of 2017 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Somwarpet (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court', for short). 2. Sri Chandranath Ariga K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is plaintiff No.5 in a suit filed for a relief of partition. It is submitted that in the said suit, defendant No.1 i.e. respondent No.1 herein has set up a Will alleged to have been executed by his father on 10.01.2004, which has been seriously disputed by the plaintiffs. It is submitted that the plaintiffs have filed an application under - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25968 WP No. 11327 of 2020 Order XVI Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'CPC') seeking to summon the entire original file pertaining to grant of land in favour of the Koragappa Poojari in order to compare the thumb impression of the deceased Koragappa Poojari with the thumb impression found at Ex.D5-the alleged Will. However, the Trial Court has erroneously rejected the said application on the ground that the defendants have placed the grant orders, saguvali chit and mutation documents and the same does not contain the thumb impression. It is further submitted that the Trial Court has erred in recording the finding that the person who disputes the document is required to establish that the document is not genuine, which is contrary to the principles of law as defendant No.1 is required to prove the Will. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Sri Chinnappa Gowda D.G, learned counsel appearing for the respondents supports the impugned order of the Trial Court and submits that the objection filed by the defendants to the application in question clearly indicates that defendant No.1 has made an attempt to secure the records - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25968 WP No. 11327 of 2020 from the Tahsildar office, but could not get the same, hence no purpose would be served in allowing the application. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents and meticulously perused the material on record. 5. The petitioner and others have filed OS 11 of 2017 for relief of declaration, partition and other prayers. The records indicate that prayer No.1 seeking declaration that the sale deed dated 10.02.2007 is a sham document, is given up by the plaintiff on the ground that the defendant in the written statement has made a categorical statement that the sale deed dated 10.02.2017 has been cancelled.. 6. Be that as it may. The written statement of defendant No.1 clearly indicates that the defendant has taken a stand that his father Koragappa Poojari has executed a Will dated 10.01.2004 which has been seriously disputed by the plaintiffs during the course of trial. In order to disprove the Will, the plaintiffs have filed an application under Order XVI Rule 6 of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25968 WP No. 11327 of 2020 CPC, seeking to summon the entire original file pertaining to the grant of the land to Koragappa Poojari vide Grant Order No. 656/1991-92 from the office of the Tahsildar, Somwarpet Taluk Kodagu in order to compare the left thumb impression of late Koragappa Poojari found in the documents like application and other documents in the file with Ex.D5. The Trial Court under the interim order rejected the said application. It is to be noted that the Trial Court while rejecting the application has recorded the reason that the defendant has produced the certified copy of the grant order and other documents. However, LTM of the deceased is not found. It is to be noticed that the certified copy of the grant order admittedly cannot have the thumb impression of the grantee. The primary contention of the plaintiff is that the thumb impression of the deceased grantee is in the application filed by him for grant of the land is required to be compared with the disputed thumb impression on Ex.D5. In my considered view, the Trial Court has committed grave error in rejecting the application. Ultimately, if the Tahsildar produces the said documents and original file, it would aid the Trial Court in deciding the lis between the parties in an effective - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25968 WP No. 11327 of 2020 way. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following order. ORDER i) Writ Petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 14.01.2020 passed on IA No.X in OS No.11 of 2017 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Somwarpet is set aside. Consequently, IA No.X filed under Order XVI Rule 6 read with Section 151 CPC, is allowed. iii) The Trial Court shall issue necessary summons and orders to secure the records from the jurisdictional Tahsildar office. No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE MKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18