- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34336 W.P. No.9474/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.9474/2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. SWAMY S/O LATE HONNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT NAGAYANAHUNDI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AKARSH KUMAR GOWDA, ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. B. MARIGOWDA S/O M. BORANNA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT CHANDAGALU VILLAGE KASABA VILLAGE SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK. 2. SMT. CHANDRAMMA W/O SWAMY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NAGAYANAHUNDI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUNEEL S. NARAYAN, ADV., FOR R1 R2 SERVED) Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34336 W.P. No.9474/2021 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.02.2020, MADE ON IA NO. NIL OS NO.90/2012, PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN), SRIRANGAPATNA VIDE ANNEXURE -E & 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 seeking the following reliefs: “i. To quash the order dated 13.02.2020, made on IA.No.Nil in OS.No.90/2012, passed by the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Srirangapatna vide Annexure-E; ii. To grant such other relief/reliefs as this Hon’ble Court as deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Sri.Akarsh Kumar Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits the respondent No.1 filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner and respondent No.2. In the said suit, the defendants filed a detailed written statement denying the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and it was contended that the plaintiff had executed an agreement of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34336 W.P. No.9474/2021 sale dated 24.06.1988 in favour of the defendants and under the said agreement possession was handed over to them. It is submitted that defendant No.1 filed an application seeking appointment of a handwriting expert to ascertain the signatures of the plaintiff on Ex.D33 i.e., agreement of sale dated 24.06.1988. However, the trial Court erroneously dismissed the application. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by allowing the application and seeks to refer Ex.D33 to a handwriting expert for examination of the plaintiff’s signatures. 3. Per contra, Sri.Suneel S. Narayan, learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff supports the order of the trial Court and submits that trial Court has rightly taken note of the fact that the defendants had not filed any suit for specific performance of the alleged agreement of sale and no notice has been issued. Hence, the prayer to refer Ex.D33 to a handwriting expert would not arise. Accordingly, he seeks to dismiss the petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34336 W.P. No.9474/2021 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the material available on record. 5. The respondent No.1 filed OS.No.90/2012 seeking judgment and decree in his favour against the defendants for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and the persons claiming under them from interfering with the plaintiff's possession over the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property is a land bearing Sy.No.136, measuring 1 acre, situated at Chandagalu Village, Kasaba Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk. The defendants filed a detailed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It was specifically contented that the plaintiff had executed an agreement of sale dated 24.06.1988 in favour of the defendants and under the said agreement possession of the suit schedule property was handed over to the defendants. Thereafter, the parties have adduced their evidence. At that stage, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34336 W.P. No.9474/2021 defendant No.1 filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 10(A) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) seeking reference of the agreement of sale dated 24.06.1988/Ex.D33 to a handwriting expert for comparison and verification of the plaintiff’s signatures thereon. The trial Court, under the impugned order dismissed the said application. 6. It is required to be noticed that the suit filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff is one for permanent injunction. The plaintiff has made averment in the plaint that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property and that he is in possession over the suit schedule property. In a suit of this nature, the burden lies upon the plaintiff to prove the lawful possession. In support of his case, the plaintiff has adduced the evidence and produced necessary documents before the trial Court. The defendants, on the other hand, is seeking to establish their possession over the suit schedule property by placing reliance on an unregistered agreement of sale dated 24.06.1988. The trial Court, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34336 W.P. No.9474/2021 taking note of the said aspect has rightly observed that the defendants have not filed any suit for specific performance to enforce the said agreement of sale. In the absence of any such proceedings, the defendants cannot ask for appointment of a handwriting expert for verification of the plaintiff’s signatures on Ex.D33. I do not find any error in the finding recorded by the trial Court in dismissing the application. 7. It is also required to be noticed that the defendants have not raised any counterclaim with regard to the possession over the property in question in their written statement. The written statement is only denial of the plaint assertions. While denying the same, it is contended that the defendants are in possession pursuant to the agreement of sale dated 24.06.1988. When things stood thus, it is the plaintiff, who has to prove his lawful possession over the suit schedule property and if he is able to prove the same by adducing cogent evidence before the trial Court, the trial Court would consider his - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34336 W.P. No.9474/2021 prayer for decree of injunction. In the said suit, filing an application by defendant No.1 based on an alleged unregistered agreement of sale dated 24.06.1988 and seeking appointment of a handwriting expert to examine the signatures of the plaintiff would not arise, as the burden is on the plaintiff to prove his case. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23