- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31357 WP No. 21866 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 21866 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT GOWRAMMA DEAD BY LRS SANTHOSHKUMAR @ Y.N. SANTHOSH S/O SMT. YASHODAMMA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS ITI STUDENT, AGRICULTURIST R/O KABBUR VILLAGE RAMAGONDANAHALLI, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTIRCT - 577 005 ALSO R/AT MALALKERE VILLAGE - 577 005 MAYAKONDA HOBLI, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 005 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. REVANNA BELLARY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT HIRIYAMMA W/OLATE GIRIMALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS 2. SMT. BASAMMA D/O LATE GIRIMALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31357 WP No. 21866 of 2022 3. MALLIKARJUNA S/O LATE GIRIMALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS AGRICULTURIST 4. SMT. RATHNAMMA D/O LATE GIRIMALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 5. PARAMESH S/O LATE GIRIMALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS AGRICULTURIST 6. JYOTHI D/O LATE GIRIMALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 7. PREMA D/O LATE GIRIMALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS ALL ARE R/O KABBUR VILLAGE RAMAGONDANAHALLI PSOT DAVANAGERE TALUK - 577 005 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR K., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 AND R3 TO R7) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE ORDERS DATED 19.10.2022 ON I.A. 1 U/O 22 RULE 3 R/W SEC 151 OF CPC IN FDP 3/2010 OF II ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE COURT, DAVANAGERE AT ANNEXURES-M AND ALLOW THIS PETITION AND I.A.1 IN FDP 3/2010 OF II ADDL. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31357 WP No. 21866 of 2022 DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE COURT, DAVANAGERE AND DECLARE THAT PETITIONER IS LEGAL HEIR TO SMT GOWRAMMA AND ENTITLED TO SHARE OF SMT GOWRAMMA. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY 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 19.10.2022 passed on I.A.No.1 under Order XXII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in FDP No.3/2010 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere (hereinafter referred to as the “Trial Court” for short). 2. Sri. Revanna Bellary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that one Smt. Gowramma has filed a suit for partition and separate possession. The said suit came to be decreed, and thereafter, she initiated final decree proceedings. During the pendency of the FDP, she passed away. Hence, the petitioner filed an application - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31357 WP No. 21866 of 2022 seeking to come on record as her legal representative on the basis of a registered Adoption Deed dated 22.06.2005, wherein the original plaintiff, Smt. Gowramma had adopted the petitioner herein. It is submitted that the applicant in the FDP has examined himself, his biological mother, and two other attesting witnesses, and produced the documents to substantiate his contention that he is the legal heir of the deceased Smt. Gowramma and is entitled to continue the FDP. However, the Trial Court erroneously rejected the application without appreciating the evidence in its proper perspective. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Sri. Rajashekhar. K., learned counsel appearing for the respondents supports the impugned order of the Trial Court and submits that Smt. Gowramma filed the suit in the year 2006, whereas the alleged adoption took place in the year 2005, which indicates that the adoption was much prior to the institution of the suit. However, she has not disclosed the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31357 WP No. 21866 of 2022 said adoption in the plaint. It is further submitted that the plaintiff in the suit produced a genealogy tree in which the name of the applicant is not forthcoming. It is also contended that the biological mother of the applicant entered the witness box as PW1 on behalf of Smt. Gowramma and deposed in the suit; however, she has not disclosed anything with regard to the adoption of her son by Smt. Gowramma. It is further submitted that the deed of adoption is a created document only to knock off the properties of Smt. Gowramma and that, until the adoption is proved, the question of treating the applicant/petitioner as the legal heir of the deceased Smt. Gowramma would not arise. The Trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, by a well-reasoned order dismissed the application and rightly closed the FDP, which does not call for any interference. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the writ petition. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31357 WP No. 21866 of 2022 respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. Smt. Gowramma has filed O.S.No.290/2009 against Smt. Hiriyamma and others, primarily contending that she is the first wife of late Sri. Girimallappa, and that, the deceased Girimallappa later married defendant No.1. The other defendants are the children of Smt. Hiriyamma and Sri. Girimallappa. The said suit filed for partition and separate possession, came to be decreed vide judgment and decree dated 16.06.2010, allotting the plaintiff Smt. Gowramma, a one-seventh share in all the suit schedule properties. The said judgment and decree in O.S.No.290/2009 has attained finality. Thereafter, Smt. Gowramma initiated final decree proceedings in FDP No.3/2010. During the pendency of the said proceedings, she passed away on 12.03.2011. Consequently, the present petitioner filed an application under Order XXII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31357 WP No. 21866 of 2022 Procedure seeking to come on record as the legal representative of the deceased Smt. Gowramma. 6. The said application was opposed by the respondents, contending that the deceased Smt. Gowramma, in the partition suit, had not disclosed that she had taken the applicant in adoption. It is further contended that one Smt. Yashodhamma, GPA holder of the original plaintiff Smt. Gowramma has been examined as PW1 and that she is the biological mother of the applicant. However, she also has not deposed before the Trial Court with regard to the adoption. It is further contended that the Adoption Deed dated 22.06.2005 is a concocted document to knock off the properties of Smt. Gowramma. 7. The FDP Court conducted an enquiry as contemplated under law by permitting the parties to adduce evidence. The biological mother of the applicant was examined as PW1, the applicant Santhosh Kumar as PW2 and two attesting witnesses to the registered Adoption Deed were examined as PW4 and PW5. They also - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31357 WP No. 21866 of 2022 have marked the documents. It is to be noticed that the respondents, in order to oppose the contention of the applicant, examined one witness as RW1 and produced Ex.R2 to Ex.R6. Ex.R2 is the voter list, Ex.R3 is the educational record of the applicant, Ex.R4 is the plaint, Ex.R5 is the GPA executed by Smt. Gowramma in favour of Smt. Yashodhamma. The oral evidence of RW1 is nothing but a reiteration of the objections filed to the application. The Trial Court, after conducting the enquiry, proceeded to reject the application filed by the applicant under Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) and further closed the FDP. 8. It is to be noticed that the Trial Court, while rejecting the application, assigned the reason that Smt. Gowramma the plaintiff, had not disclosed in the plaint that she had adopted the applicant. The documents placed along with the plaint also does not indicate that she had adopted the applicant. Further, even in the evidence adduced by the GPA holder of the plaintiff, it is not - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31357 WP No. 21866 of 2022 disclosed that there was an adoption. Hence, the Trial Court concluded that the Adoption Deed is not genuine. The Trial Court further recorded a finding that the school record marked as Ex.P3 of the applicant reflected the name of Sri. Nagarajappa as the father of the applicant and proceeded to reject the application. 9. In my considered view, the approach of the Trial Court in rejecting the oral and documentary evidence is perverse, and the findings recorded by it run contrary to the material available on record. It is to be noticed that Smt. Gowramma filed a suit for partition against Smt. Hiriyamma and others, claiming that she is the first wife of late Sri. Girimallappa. The said suit was for partition and separate possession and was decreed. Since, the said suit being for partition and separate possession, the question of Smt. Gowramma disclosing the adoption of the applicant therein would not arise, as it would be beyond the scope of the suit proceeding. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31357 WP No. 21866 of 2022 10. It is also to be noticed that in the said suit, the GPA holder of the plaintiff, who is none other than the biological mother of the applicant, examined herself as PW1 on behalf of the original plaintiff. Even in her evidence, the question of disclosing the fact that she had given her son in adoption to the original plaintiff would not arise, as the issue involved in the suit pertains to partition and separate possession and not of adoption. 11. It is further to be noticed that the Trial Court has incorrectly recorded a finding that even in the educational records of the applicant, the name of his biological father is reflected. In my considered view, such a finding is perverse, as the applicant was adopted in the year 2005 and Ex.P3 pertains to a period prior to the said adoption. Hence, the said document cannot be a basis to come to a conclusion that the adoption itself is incorrect. 12. The Trial Court has failed to take note of the fact that the Adoption Deed is a registered instrument dated 22.06.2005, and that all four witnesses have - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31357 WP No. 21866 of 2022 consistently spoken with regard to the adoption deed and its contents. There was no occasion; in other words, there was no evidence on record for the Trial Court to conclude that no adoption had taken place. In the absence of any cogent and acceptable evidence to disbelieve the registered adoption deed, in my considered view, the applicant has placed sufficient material before the Trial Court to substantiate that Smt. Gowramma had taken him in adoption under the registered Adoption Deed dated 22.06.2005, and the said stand is fructified by the oral testimony of PW1 to PW4 and other documentary evidence on record. The purpose of Order XXII Rule 3 of CPC is to prevent the FDP court from dismissing the application by ensuring the legal representatives are substituted. The enquiry contemplated under this provision of law is summary in nature and the court is required to hold whether the applicant is authorized by law to represent the estate of a deceased person or not. In the case on hand the applicant-petitioner is the adopted son of the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31357 WP No. 21866 of 2022 deceased plaintiff and in order to prove the right to sue, the applicant has produced oral and documentary evidence on record. Hence, the application deserves to be allowed as the applicant has established a caveatable interest in the property of the deceased plaintiff. 13. For the aforementioned reasons, I am of the view that the Trial Court has committed a grave error in rejecting the evidence available on record and in recording an incorrect finding. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) Impugned order dated 19.10.2022 passed in FDP.No.3/2010 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere is set aside. iii) Consequently, I.A.No.1 filed by the petitioner under Order XXII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31357 WP No. 21866 of 2022 Procedure is allowed. The Final Decree Proceedings are restored to the file of the said Court. iv) The records shall be transmitted back to the Trial Court. v) No orders to cost. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE SHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19