- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33131 W.P. No.6965/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.6965/2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. MARIDEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O LATE CHAMAPPA. 2. SRI. PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O DEVAPPA. BOTH ARE R/AT MARAYYANAHUNDI VILLAGE DODDAMARAGOWDANAHALLI POST YELWALA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT 570016. REP. BY THEIR GPA HOLDER SRI. SHIVAMURTHY M AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS S/O MARIDEVAPPA R/AT. MARAYYANAHUNDI VILLAGE YELAWALA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT 570016. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. C. MOHAN, ADV., FOR SRI. P. NATARAJU, ADV.,) AND: SRI. CHAMAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LR’S. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33131 W.P. No.6965/2022 1. SRI. MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O LATE CHAMAIAH. 2. SRI. SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O LATE NINGAPPA. 3. SRI. SHIVARAJU AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O LATE NINGAPPA. 4. SRI. CHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS S/O LATE LINGAIAH @ DODDALINGAIAH. 5. SRI. NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O CHAMAPPA. R1 TO R5 ARE R/AT MARAYYANAHUNDI VILLAGE DODDAMARAGOWDANAHALLI POST YELWALA HOBLI, MYSURU TAUK AND DISTRICT 570016. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NANJUNDA SWAMY N, ADV., FOR R1 TO R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED XIII ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MYSURU IN O.S.NO.2142/2009 (O.S.NO.389/2009) ON I.A.NO.20 DATED 04.03.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ALLOW I.A.NO.20 ON ITS FILE AS PRAYED FOR & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33131 W.P. No.6965/2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed challenging the order dated 04.03.2022 passed on I.A.No.XX in O.S.No.2142/2009 (O.S.No.389/2009) by the XIII Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Mysuru (for short, ‘the trial Court’). 2. Heard Sri.C.Mohan, learned counsel for Sri.P.Nataraju, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Nanjundaswamy N., learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. The respondents have filed the suit in O.S.No.389/2009 against the petitioners herein seeking the relief of declaration that the plaintiffs are the absolute owner and in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and consequential relief of permanent injunction. The suit schedule property is the land bearing Sy.No.166/5 measuring 0.08 ½ guntas out of 0.14 guntas - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33131 W.P. No.6965/2022 situated at Doddamaragowdanahalli Village, Yelawala Hobli, Mysuru Taluk. 4. The petitioners filed a detailed written statement. The trial Court framed the issues. The parties laid the evidence. Then, the matter was posted for arguments. At that stage, the defendants filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to appoint a competent person/Taluka Surveyor as a Court Commissioner to find out the actual existing boundary in Sy.No.166/5 and Sy.No.166/6 of Doddamaragowdanahalli Village, Yelawala Hobli, Mysuru Taluk. The said application was opposed by the plaintiffs. The trial court under the impugned order rejected the said application. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the forefathers of the plaintiffs have purchased the property in the year 1936 vide sale deed dated 15.03.1936 and in the said sale deed instead of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33131 W.P. No.6965/2022 referring the correct survey number as Sy.No.166/6, it is mentioned as Sy.No.166/5 and as per the chakku bandi shown in the plaint, it tallies with Sy.No.166/5. Hence, an application for appointment of Court Commissioner was filed which was erroneously rejected by the trial Court. It is submitted that the Court Commissioner’s report would aid the trial Court to decide the dispute between the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiffs opposed the writ petition by supporting the impugned order and submits that the relief sought by the plaintiffs is for declaration of ownership and consequential relief of injunction. Therefore, the burden is on the plaintiffs to prove the case. Hence, the case set-up by the defendants cannot be considered as the same is without any basis. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 7. The application seeking appointment of Court Commissioner is filed to measure the actual existence of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33131 W.P. No.6965/2022 boundaries in Sy.No.166/5 and Sy.No.166/6 and the said application is supported by an affidavit, wherein at para No.2 of the affidavit indicates the assertion of the defendants that in the sale deed dated 15.03.1936 there is an incorrect entry with regard to the survey number and due to the said mistake, the dispute has arisen between the parties. Therefore, to ascertain the actual position of the parties with respect to the suit schedule properties a comparison of those properties with the schedule is required to be done. 8. The trial Court by considering the rival submissions has come to the conclusion that the parties have led the evidence and the evidence on record is sufficient to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. The trial Court has also recorded that the suit is of the year 2009 and for more than 10 years the parties have protracted the proceedings and the appointment of Court Commissioner is not necessary to answer the issue involved in the suit. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33131 W.P. No.6965/2022 9. The trial Court also come to the conclusion that the burden is on the plaintiffs to prove that they are the absolute owners and in possession of the suit schedule property and in the absence of any counter claim, the assertion of the defendants that there is an incorrect mention of the survey number in the sale deed of the year 1936 cannot be looked into. 10. I do not find any error or perversity in the findings recorded by the trial Court in rejecting the application of the defendants filed for appointment of the Court Commissioner. Hence, the impugned order does not call for any interference in the present petition. The writ petition is accordingly rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26