- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32320 W.P. No.21851/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.21851/2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. ABHISHECA MARY ALIAS JAISHEELA AGED 65 YEARS W/O A. MOHAN NO.5, KRISHNAPPA LAYOUT OPP. BANSAVADI RAILWAY STATION LINGARAJAPURAM BANGALORE - 560 084. 2. SMT. UBAGAR MARRY @ PREMA W/O A. KANICKARAJ AGED 71 YEARS R/A NO 9, 6TH MAIN S.K. GUARDIAN BENSON TOWN POST BANGALORE 46. 3. SMT. RAJAM D/O ARPUDAM AGED 58 YEARS R/AT. NO 13, 15TH CROSS GUNDAPPA MATTA ROAD THOMAS TOWN POST BANGALORE 84. 4. MR. VICTOR LAZARUS S/O LATE GEORGE JOSEPH LAZARUS AGED 74 YEARS R/A NO.103, SUNDAR CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY, PLOT NO.26 AIROLI, SECTOR 6 Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32320 W.P. No.21851/2021 NAVI MUMBAI 400705. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GOPALKRISHNA KURANDWAD, ADV.,) AND: 1. 1(a) MR. CHARLES EDWARD RAPHAEL S/O LATE S.S. RAPPEL R/AT TRANS 42, 93-95, COLOMBIA SOUTH AMERICA SINCE DECEASED BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES. MRS. ANA INES RAPHAEL W/O LATE CHARLES EDWARD RAPHAEL. 1(b) MRS. IVONNE ANDREA RAPHAEL D/O LATE CHARLES EDWARD RAPHAEL. 1(c) MRS. SABINA JOANAI RAPHAEL D/O LATE CHARLES EDWARD RAPHAEL. 1(a) TO 1(e) REP. BY SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY MACLINE NITHYA KUMARI W/O ESWARA REDDY AGED 53 YEARS R/AT 28, LAXMAIAH REDDY ROAD HALASURU, BANGALORE - 560 008. 2. SMT. GRACE RAPHEL W/O SRI. J. WILSON AGED 84 YEARS R/AT NO.28, LAXAMAIAH REDDY ROAD HALASURU, BANGALORE – 08. 3. SRI. FREDRICK DAVID W/O S.V. DAVID AGED 68 YEARS R/A NO.28, (NEW NO.23) 2ND CROSS, SRINIVAS REDDY - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32320 W.P. No.21851/2021 LAYOUT, ULSOOR. 4. SRI. JAMES RAPPEL S/O LATE ANTONY AGE MAJOR. 5. SMT. HILDA RAPHEL AGED 68 YEARS DEAD. 6. 7. SRI EDWIN RAPHEL S/O ANTONY RAPHEL AGED 76 YEARS. SRI. GEORGE RAPHEL S/O ANTONY RAPHEL AGED 65 YEARS. 8. SRI. STEPHEN RAPHEL S/O ANTONY RAPHEL DEAD BY LR’S. 8(a) VENNILA W/O LATE STEPHEN RAPHAEL AGED 65 YEARS. 8(b) VANDANA D/O LATE STEPHEN RAPHAEL AGED 45 YEARS. 8(c) SANDHYA D/O LATE STEPHEN RAPHAEL AGED 43 YEARS. 8(d) VISHAL S/O LATE STEPHEN RAPHEAL AGED 41 YEARS. 9. SRI. CHARLES RAPHEL S/O ANTONY RAPHEL AGED 58 YEARS. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32320 W.P. No.21851/2021 RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 9 ARE R/O 48, VENKATASWAMY LAYOUT LINGARAJAPURAM BANGALORE - 560 084. 10. SELVAM S/O PETER SWAMYNATHAN R/O NO.19, GUNDAPPA MUTT ROAD LINGARAJAPURAM, BENGALURU. 11. ALICE JOSEPH RAPHAEL D/O LATE JOSEPH RAPHAEL. 12. DANY S/O LATE JOSEPH RAPHAEL AGE MAJOR. 13. PRAKASH S/O LATE JOSEPH RAPHAEL AGE MAJOR. 14. MARGARET JOSEPH RAPHAEL D/O LATE JOSEPH RAPHAEL AGE MAJOR. RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 14 ARE R/OF. NO.50, GOWRI “A”, 5TH FLOOR SHIVADAM COMPLEX, AMBARNATH THANE, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA. 15. MARY LEEMA ROSE IRUDAYANATHAN W/O IRUDAYANATHAN AGED 62 YEARS. 16. CHRISTINA JOY D/O IRUDAYANATHAN AGED 42 YEARS. 17. FRANK IRUDAYANATHAN S/O IRUDAYANATHAN - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32320 W.P. No.21851/2021 AGED 39 YEARS. RESPONDENTS NO.15 TO 17 ARE ALL R/AT. NO.8, MUNITHAYAPPA LAYOUT 1ST CROSS, LINGARAJAPURAM BENGALURU-560084. 18. VINI SOPHIA D/O IRUDAYANATHAN AGED 37 YEARS R/O NO.18, BYRESHWARA LAYOUT NEAR HASNATH COLLGE, HENNUR BANDE BENGALURU 560043. 19. FATHIMA JOSEPH LAZARUS W/O LOUIS PINTO AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS NO.5, G PEREIRA CHAWL SITALADEVI TEMPLE ROAD MAHIM MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.M. JAGANATH, ADV., FOR R1 (a to c) SRI. SHRAVAN S. LOKRE, ADV., FOR R3 & R14 SRI. R.C. NAGARAJ, ADV., FOR R8 (a to d) R11 TO R13 & R15 TO R19) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS. QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.15.11.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED TRIAL JUDGE ON IA NO.6/2021 IN O.S.NO.15262/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE LXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MAYOHALL BENGALURU (CCH-73) MARKED AS ANNXURE-H TO THE W.P. & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32320 W.P. No.21851/2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed challenging the order dated 15.11.2021 passed on IA.No.6/2021 in OS.No.15262/2006 by the LXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru (CCH-73), (for short ‘the trial Court’). 2. Sri.GopalKrishna Kurandwad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners filed a suit for partition and other consequential reliefs. In the said suit, the daughter of defendant No.2 produced an alleged Special Power of Attorney (SPA) executed by defendant Nos.1(a) to 1(c). Consequently, the petitioners filed an application seeking reference of the said SPA alleged to have been executed in Colombia, to a handwriting expert for comparison of the signatures found on the SPA with those found on the document of authentication. It is submitted that the signatures found on the SPA and authentication are different. Hence, the application was filed seeking to refer for handwriting - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32320 W.P. No.21851/2021 expert. It is further submitted that the language of the document of authentication is in Spanish and the trial Court without understanding the contents of the said document as the defendants have failed to produce the translated version of it, proceeded to reject the application, mainly relying upon Section 85 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short ‘the Act’). It is also submitted that the presumption available under Section 85 of the Act is subject to compliance with Section 14 of the Notaries Act, 1952 and as per the instructions of the petitioners, there exists no reciprocal arrangement between India and Colombia as contemplated under Section 14 of the Notaries Act, 1952. Therefore, the presumption under Section 85 of the Act is not available in respect of the SPA. It is contended that unless the Court is satisfied that there is a reciprocal arrangement, the SPA produced by the daughter of defendant No.2 cannot be relied upon. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32320 W.P. No.21851/2021 case of REI Agro Ltd. v. UBS AG and Others1. Accordingly, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Sri.K.M.Jaganath, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(c) supports the order of the trial Court and submits that the family of defendant No.1 had shifted to Colombia many decades ago and they are the owners of the suit schedule properties. It is submitted that following the demise of defendant No.1, his legal heirs were brought on record in the suit, and they have executed a SPA in favour of the daughter of defendant No.2. It is further submitted that the said Power of Attorney was duly executed before the competent authority in Colombia, which, after verification of their personal data by the said authority, has proved the SPA by affixing its signature and seal, which can be relied in the judicial proceedings before the Court. It is further submitted that there are other litigations with regard to the property and deceased Mr.Charles Edward Raphael, 1 2015 SCC OnLine Cal 2557 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32320 W.P. No.21851/2021 defendant No.1 had earlier initiated P&SC proceedings against Sri.S.V.David and others based on the Will executed by his father, and the competent Court at Bengaluru has issued Letters of Administration in respect of the Will dated 27.09.1962. It is also submitted that there were two suits, one is OS.No.10522/1991 and another is OS.No.11059/1996 between defendant No.1 and others. A suit filed by defendant No.1 came to be decreed and the appeals are pending consideration. It is contended that in those proceedings as well, defendant No.1 had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of daughter of defendant No.2 and the said SPA was also executed in Colombia. The said Power of Attorney, similarly executed and authenticated in Colombia, had been accepted by the trial Court as well as by this Court and allowed the agent to conduct the proceedings on behalf of the legal heirs of deceased defendant No.1. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32320 W.P. No.21851/2021 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. The petitioners filed a suit in OS.No.15262/2006 seeking relief of partition and separate possession of their 1/13 share in schedule 'A' to 'C' properties along with other consequential reliefs. In the said suit, the LRs of deceased defendant No.1 entered appearance through their SPA holder, daughter of defendant No.2 and filed a detailed written statement. In the said suit, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) seeking to issue commission to scientifically investigate the execution of the document titled as Special Power of Attorney (SPA) marked as Ex.D1 on behalf of defendant Nos.1(a) to 1(c) by comparing the signature of the said defendants on the SPA and on the document of authentication by Colombian - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32320 W.P. No.21851/2021 Notary titled “DILIGENCIA DE PRESENTACION PERSONAL”. In support of the application, plaintiff No.1 filed an affidavit contending that defendant No.1 had never married and therefore, defendant Nos.1(a) to 1(c) are falsely claiming to be his legal heirs. It is further deposed that there was a noticeable difference between the signatures appearing on the SPA executed by the said defendants and those found in the document of authentication before the Colombian Notary titled “DILIGENCIA DE PRESENTACION PERSONAL”. It is also deposed that the language of the document of authentication according to SPA holder was in Spanish and that the Power of Attorney holder had not produced any authenticated translation of the same. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer that the translated copy of the document of authentication from Spanish to English, which is produced before this Court by the defendants. The deponent in the affidavit has further deposed that there is a clear suspicion with regard to the signatures - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32320 W.P. No.21851/2021 found on the SPA as well as on the document of authentication before the authority. The trial Court, under the impugned order by considering the effect of Section 85 of the Act, rejected the application by holding that there is a clear presumption with regard to the authenticated copy of the SPA. 6. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the presumption available under Section 85 of the Act is subject to provisions of Section 14 of the Notaries Act, 1952. For ready reference, Section 14 of the Notaries Act is extracted below: “14. Reciprocal arrangements for recognition of notarial acts done by foreign notaries.—If the Central Government is satisfied that by the law or practice of any country or place outside India, the notarial acts done by notaries within India are recognised for all or any limited purposes in that country or place, the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare that the notarial acts lawfully done by notaries within such country or place shall be recognised within India for all purposes or, as the case may be, for such limited purposes as may be specified in the notification.” - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32320 W.P. No.21851/2021 7. The aforesaid section provides recognition of notarial acts done by foreign notaries. The said section mandates that, if the Central Government is satisfied that by law or by practice of any country or place outside India, the notarial acts done by notaries within India are recognized for all or any limited purposes in that country or place, the Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, declare that notarial act lawfully done by the notaries within such country or place shall be recognized with India for all the purposes. 8. It is further contended that no notification is available to come to conclusion that there is a reciprocal arrangement between India and Colombia. It is to be noticed that said contention is not stated in the application or the affidavit accompanying the application seeking to issue commission to scientifically investigate the execution of the document titled as Special Power of Attorney (SPA) marked as Ex.D1 on behalf of defendant Nos.1(a) to 1(c) by comparing the signature of the said defendants on the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32320 W.P. No.21851/2021 SPA and on the document of authentication by Colombian Notary titled “DILIGENCIA DE PRESENTACION PERSONAL”. Be that as it may, merely because the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notification has not been found, the same cannot be a ground to question the authenticity of the document. This Court is saying so for the simple reason that the very same defendant No.1 has secured the notarized power of attorney and got it authenticated from Colombian competent authority and produced in other proceedings, which has been accepted by the Courts and proceedings were conducted based on such SPA. Hence, I am of the view that such contention has no merit consideration. 9. It is also required to be noticed that, it is the plaintiffs, who are raising doubt with regard to the variation in the signatures found in the SPA as well as on the document of authentication by the competent authority. In my considered view, it is impermissible as the plaintiffs have no expertise in the field to come to - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32320 W.P. No.21851/2021 conclusion that there is a variation in the signatures found on the SPA and the signatures of the same persons found in the authenticated document annexed to the Power of Attorney. Be that as it may, the competent authority, who has certified the SPA, has made the following observations: “Conforme al Articulo 18 del Decreto-Ley 019 de 2012, los comparecientes fueron identificados mediante cotejo biometrico enlinea de su huella dactilar con la informacion biografica y biometrica de la base de datos de la Registraduria Nacional del Estado Civil. Acorde a la authorizacion del usuario, se dio tratamiento legal relacionado con la proteccion de sus datos personales y las politicas de seguridad de la informacion establecidas por la Registraduria Nacional del Estado Civil.” 10. The translation of the above paragraph is as under: “Pursuant to Article 18 of Decree Law 019 of 2012, the participants were identified by online biometric matching of their fingerprint with the biographic and biometric information in the database of the National Civil Registry. According to the user’s authorization, it was given legal treatment related to the protection of their personal data and the information security policies established by the National Civil Registry.” - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32320 W.P. No.21851/2021 11. It is to be noticed that the competent authority at Colombia has clearly stated that as per Article 18 of Del Decreto-Ley 019 de 2012, the participants were identified by online biometric matching of their fingerprint with their biographic and biometric information in the database of the National Civil Registry and according to the user’s authorization, it was given legal recognition relating to protection of their personal data and the information security policies established by the National Civil Registry. The official declaration of the Colombian notary makes it abundantly clear that the competent authority in Columbia undertook due verification by comparing the fingerprints, biometric and other identifications from the database of the National Civil Registry and after satisfying that defendant Nos.1(a) to 1(c) are the persons, who have executed the SPA in favour of their agent proceeded to issue the said declaration. 12. In the light of such official certification, the suspicion entertained by the plaintiffs regarding the - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32320 W.P. No.21851/2021 genuineness of the signatures is wholly unsupported by any material evidence. Unless the plaintiffs place prima facie cogent material before the Court demonstrating that the signatures appearing on the SPA and the document of authentication annexed to the SPA are different, in my considered view, filing of such an application is nothing but abuse of process of law and liable to be rejected. The trial Court considering the rival contentions and taking note of the law on the point has rightly come to the conclusion and rejected the application, which does not call for any interference. 13. Insofar as the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the case of REI Agro Ltd referred supra, I am of the considered view that the said judgment has laid down the law that the presumption available under Section 85 of the Act is subject to Section 14 of the Notaries Act, 1952. There is no dispute with regard to the said proposition. In the case on hand, the plaintiffs have failed to produce any material before the - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32320 W.P. No.21851/2021 trial Court to come to conclusion that there was no reciprocal arrangement between India and Colombia. I am of the considered view that said contention cannot be appreciated. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24