- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30632 W.P. No.52222/2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.52222/2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. NAGAMMA W/O LATE KARADAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS AGRICULTURIST. 2. SRI. KARIYANNA S/O LATE KARADAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS AGRICULTURIST. 3. SRI. PURUSHOTHAMA S/O LATE KARADAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS. ALL ARE R/O. BOMMASAMUDRA CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577522. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. B.M. SIDDAPPA, ADV.,) AND: 1. BALAMMA W/O LATE KARADAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS AGRICULTURIST. 2. SANNAMMA W/O KYATHAPPA Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30632 W.P. No.52222/2019 AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O. UPPARAHALLY CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DIST – 577 501. 3. LAKSHMIDEVI W/O YARRAPPA AGED 55 YEARS. 4. SANEERAMMA W/O JAYARAMAPPA AGED 53 YEARS. 1, 3 & 4 ARE R/O. R/O BOMMASAMUDRA CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577522. 5. GANGAMMA W/O MUDALAGIRIYAPPA AGED 39 YEARS R/O JAJUR, CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577522. 6. CHITRALINGAPPA S/O KARADAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/O BOMMASAMUDRA CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522. …RESPONDENTS (R3 SD AND UNREPRESENTED V/O/DTD:28.03.2025, NOTICE TO R5 AND R6 IS D/W V/O/DTD:10.06.2025, R1 & R4 ARE SERVICE H/S V/O/DTD:04.03.2026, NOTICE TO R2 IS H/S) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHALLAKERE IN O.S.NO.14/2009 DATED 05.12.2019 ON THE APPLICATION - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30632 W.P. No.52222/2019 FILED UNDER ORDER XXVI RULE 10(A) R/W 151 CPC VIDE ANNEXURE-E TO THE WRIT PETITION & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 05.12.2019 passed on an application filed under Order XXVI Rule 10(A) r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) in OS.No.14/2009 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Challakere (for short ‘the trial Court’). 2. Sri.B.M.Siddappa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the defendants in the suit filed by respondent Nos.1 to 4 seeking partition and separate possession. In the said suit, the petitioners filed an application seeking for sending the admitted signatures of late Sri.Karadappa found in Exs.D11 and D12 with the disputed signature appearing in Ex.D13, a Will alleged to have been executed by late - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30632 W.P. No.52222/2019 Sri.Karadappa in favour of the petitioners. It is submitted that the trial Court rejected the said application on the ground that there may be variations in the signatures due to several factors, whereas thumb impressions generally do not vary, and that the parties has to adduce evidence to prove the execution and contents of the Will. It is further submitted that now it is at the stage of defendants evidence and the petitioners would depose before the trial Court with regard to the execution of the Will, sale deed etc. However, when the plaintiffs have specifically denied the execution of the registered Will by late Sri.Karadappa in favour of the plaintiffs and have disputed the signature and thumb impression appearing on Ex.D13, it would be appropriate to refer the said document along with the admitted documents to the experts in order to take input as to whether the signature and the thumb impression on Ex.D13 is of Sri.Karadappa or not. It is also submitted that by sending such document, no prejudice or harm would be - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30632 W.P. No.52222/2019 caused to the other side. Hence, he seeks to allow the petitioner. 3. Despite the service of notice, there is no representation for the respondents. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. The respondent No.1 to 4 herein filed a suit in OS.No.14/2009 seeking partition and separate possession. In the said suit, the petitioners herein are arrayed as defendant Nos.1, 2 and 5. The defendants in their written statement have specifically contended that the late Sri.Karadappa executed a registered Will dated 11.06.1998 in favour of the petitioners and respondent Nos.5 and 6. The said Will has been denied by the plaintiffs in the suit. During the course of tiral, the Will was marked as Ex.D13 and also two sale deeds dated 30.04.1974 and 21.02.1983, under which late - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30632 W.P. No.52222/2019 Sri.Karadappa had purchased certain properties were marked as Ex.D11 and D12. It is to be noticed that at the stage of defendants evidence, the petitioners/defendants filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 10(A) of the CPC seeking reference of Exs.D11 and D12, which are the admitted documents containing the admitted signatures and thumb impressions of late Sri.Karadappa, along with Ex.D13, the disputed Will to a handwriting expert to find out whether the thumb impression and signature is of late Sri.Karadappa or not. It is further to be noticed that the trial Court rejected the said application on the ground that there may be variations in the signature, but there would not be any variation in the thumb impression. It is also to be noticed that the plaintiffs have specifically contended that the Will dated 11.06.1998 claimed by the defendants was never executed by late Sri.Karadappa. However, the said contention is vehemently disputed by the defendants. 6. It is required to be noticed that the said execution of the Will is no doubt required to be proved by - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30632 W.P. No.52222/2019 the defendants during the course of trial. However, in my considered view, sending the disputed document namely Ex.D13 along with the admitted documents, Exs.D11 and D12, to a handwriting experts would aid the trial Court in deciding the controversy between the parties. The defendants are ascertaining rights under the Will which has been specifically denied by the plaintiffs in the suit, where the plaintiffs have denied the signature and the thumb impression of late Sri.Karadappa appearing on the registered Will dated 11.06.1998. When there is a specific denial by one party and claim by another party, no harm or prejudice would be caused to the plaintiffs if the documents referred in the application are referred to the handwriting expert to find out as to whether the signature and the thumb impression found at Ex.D13 is of late Sri.Karadappa upon comparing with Ex.D11 and Ex.D12. However, it cannot be ignored that general application is required to be allowed, after conclusion of the evidence. However, in the case on hand, one party claims Will as - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30632 W.P. No.52222/2019 genuine and another denies the same. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate to allow the application at this stage. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 05.12.2019 passed on an application filed under Order XXVI Rule 10(A) r/w Section 151 of the CPC in OS.No.14/2009 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Challakere is hereby set aside. Consequently, IA filed under Order XXVI Rule 10(A) r/w Section 151 of the CPC is allowed. iii. The trial Court shall refer the documents sought in the application - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30632 W.P. No.52222/2019 to the handwriting expert and secure the report in time bound manner. No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16