- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30413 W.P. No.2297/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.2297/2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. T.R. MALATHI W/O A.S. NARASIMHAN AGED 57 YEARS NO.721, D BLOCK 10TH MAIN ROAD NEAR KAVITHA BAKERY CIRCLE J.P.NAGAR, MYSORE-570008. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHANTKUMAR N, ADV., FOR SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY M.R. ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE NAGARAJU AGED 61 YEARS. 2. SRI. BHASKAR S/O LATE NAGARAJU AGED 46 YEARS. 3. SMT. DEVAMMA D/O LATE NAGARAJU AGED 43 YEARS. 4. SMT. MAMATHA D/O LATE NAGARAJU AGED 41 YEARS. ALL ARE R/O PENJAHALLI VILLAGE Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30413 W.P. No.2297/2022 KASABA HOBLI H.D.KOTE TALUK-571125. 5. MOHAMMAD ELIYAS S/O LATE MAHAMMAD BAKAR SAB AGED 56 YEARS NO.304, UDAYAGIRI SHANTHINAGAR, MYSORE-570 019. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.F. KUMBAR, ADV., FOR R1 TO R4 V/O/DTD:12.09.2022, NOTICE TO R5 IS H/S) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE Jr. Dvn. AND JMFC, H.D. KOTE IN O.S.NO.238/2010 DTD. 26.11.2021 PASSED ON I.A. FILED UNDER SECTION 45 OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, PRODUCED AT ANNX-K AND ALLOW APPLICATION & 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 26.11.2021 passed on IA filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short ‘the Act’) in OS.No.238/2010 by the Civil Judge, Junior Division and JMFC, H.K.Kote (for short 'the trial Court'). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30413 W.P. No.2297/2022 2. Heard Sri.Shantkumar N., learned counsel for Sri.Krishnamurthy M.R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.V.F.Kumbar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and meticulously perused the material available on record. 3. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed OS.No.238/2010 seeking relief of declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property. In the said suit, the respondents filed a written statement, issues were framed and the parties led the evidence. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application under Section 45 of the Act seeking to refer Ex.P10, Ex.P11 and Ex.P12 to the handwriting expert and the handwriting expert to compare the signature of the deceased defendant No.1 on the aforesaid exhibits with the admitted signature in the written statement filed by him in the suit. The trial Court rejected the said application. The case of the plaintiff before the trial Court is that the suit schedule property was originally granted in favour of defendant No.2 on - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30413 W.P. No.2297/2022 25.10.1971 and thereafter defendant No.2 executed agreement of sale in favour of one Smt.Kempamma and the said Smt.Kempamma further executed the agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff on 30.04.1984 and later, defendant No.2 executed the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on 01.06.1992. It is a specific case of the plaintiff that by virtue of these instruments, the plaintiff becomes the owner of the suit schedule property, and in the agreement entered between Smt.Kempamma and the plaintiff and in the sale deed dated 01.06.1992, executed by defendant No.2 in favour of the plaintiff, the deceased defendant No.1 has signed as a consenting witness. 4. The trial Court recorded the evidence of the parties. Thereafter, the application seeking to refer Ex.P10 to Ex.P12 to handwriting expert was rejected mainly on the ground that the suit is for declaration of ownership and the plaintiff has to prove the same by oral and documentary evidence and these documents have no - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30413 W.P. No.2297/2022 bearing on the case on hand. The trial Court, while rejecting the application by referring to Ex.P11 has observed that the agreement at Ex.P11 does not confer any right on the plaintiff. 5. The defendants opposed the said application, contending that the burden is on the plaintiff, who has gone to the Court seeking declaration of ownership and she is required to prove that she is the owner of the suit schedule property. The case of the defendants is that defendant No.2 has executed a sale deed dated 13.04.1992 in favour of defendant No.1 and such stand is taken by defendant No.1 and his LRs as well. It is also contended that the LRs of defendant No.1 and the defendant No.2 have denied the ownership of the plaintiff. 6. The plaintiff is seeking to refer Exs.P10, P11 and P12 more precisely the signature of the deceased defendant No.1 found on these exhibits to be compared with the signature of the deceased defendant No.1 in the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30413 W.P. No.2297/2022 written statement filed by him in the suit. The contention of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff has acquired the property from defendant No.2 who was the originally grantee. Firstly, defendant No.2 executes the agreement of sale in favour of one Smt.Kempamma and she executes the agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff on 30.04.1984 and later, defendant No.2 executed the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on 01.06.1992. It is a specific case of the plaintiff that in all these instruments, the deceased defendant No.1 has signed as a consenting witness. The said assertion of the plaintiff is categorically denied by the defendants in the written statement as well as in the application filed for referring the exhibits for handwriting expert and also in their evidence. 7. In my considered view, when there is a serious dispute by the defendants with regard to the signature of the deceased defendant No.1 on the aforesaid exhibits and heavy burden is on the plaintiff to prove the ownership of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30413 W.P. No.2297/2022 the suit schedule property, referring the Ex.P10 to Ex.P12 to the handwriting expert, would aid the trial Court in deciding the dispute between the parties. The plaintiff is making a specific assertion that deceased defendant No.1 has affixed his signature as a consenting witness to the Ex.P10 to Ex.P12 which has been categorically denied by the other side more particularly the LRs of deceased defendant No.1 in their pleading as well as their evidence. Hence, it would be appropriate to refer these documents for the purpose of comparing the signature of the aforesaid documents with the admitted signature of deceased defendant No.1 found in the written statement. 8. The contention of the other side is that the trial Court has a power to compare the signature under Section 73 of the Act. In my considered view, such exercise is required to be carried out sparingly and in exceptional circumstances as the trial Court also does not have any expertise to compare the signature, though the provision is provided to compare the signature. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30413 W.P. No.2297/2022 9. This Court in the case of Sri.Shadaksharappa v. Kumari Vijayalaxmi and Others1 has laid down the detailed guidelines to be followed by the trial Court while considering such situation. Keeping in mind the enunciation of law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision, I am of the considered view that the opinion of the expert with regard to the signature of the deceased defendant No.1 would definitely aid the trial Court in deciding the lis in a better way and no prejudice would cause to the other side. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 26.10.2021 passed on IA filed under Section 45 of the Act in OS.No.238/2010 by the Civil Judge, Junior Division and JMFC, H.K.Kote is hereby set 1 2023 SCC OnLine Kar 53 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30413 W.P. No.2297/2022 aside. Consequently, application filed by the plaintiff is allowed. iii. The trial Court shall refer the sought documents to the handwriting expert in accordance with law. iv. It is needless to observe that the observations made by this Court are restricted only to decide this case and it should not come in the way of the trial Court deciding suit on merits. v. The trial Court shall endure to dispose of suit as early as possible immediately after the receipt of the report. No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32