- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20933 W.P. No.18353/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.18353/2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: HUSSAIN SAB SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS. 1. ZUBEDA BI W/O LATE HUSSAIN SAB AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/AT TYAVANAGI VILLAGE BASAVAPATNA HOBLI CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577213. 2. SHAHJAN BI @ SHAHAJABDI W/O LATE SATTAR SAB D/O LATE HUSSAIN SAB AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT TYAVANAGI VILLAGE NEAR BUS STAND BASAVAPATNA HOBLI CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577213. 3. HYDAR ALI S/O LATE HUSSAIN SAB AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT TYAVANAGI VILLAGE NEAR BUS STAND BASAVAPATNA HOBLI CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577213. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20933 W.P. No.18353/2022 PETITIONER NOS.1 AND 3 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER SHAHJAN BI @ SHAHAJABDI PETITIONER NO.2 HEREIN …PETITIONERS (BY MS. KEERTHI K.S. ADV., FOR MR. RAGHAVENDRA RAO K & MRS. V. VIDYA, ADVS.,) AND: HALAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS. 1. SMT. GANGAMMA W/O LATE HALAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS. 2. SHIVAJI RAO S/O LATE HALAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS. 3. JAYAPPA S/O LATE HALAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS. 4. YELLOJI RAO S/O LATE HALAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS. 5. SULOCHANA W/O KRISHNOJI RAO D/O LATE HALAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS. ALL ARE R/OF TADASA VILLAGE HOLEHONNUR HOBLI BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577227. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.N. BASAVARAJU, ADV., FOR R1 TO R5) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20933 W.P. No.18353/2022 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSE BY LEARNED II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHADRAVATHI ON I.A.NO.11, 12 AND 13 IN O.S.NO.11/2013 DTD 15.07.2022 FOUND AT ANNEXURE-J ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS & 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 15.07.2022 passed on I.A.Nos.11 to 13 filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.11/2013 by the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhadravathi (for short 'the Trial Court'). 2. Ms.Keerthi K.S., learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners-plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration that the plaintiff No.1 is the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and for a consequential relief of possession over the suit schedule property. In the said suit, after conclusion of the trial, applications in I.A.Nos.11 to 13 were filed to refer the thumb impression of the plaintiff No.1-late Hussain Sab - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20933 W.P. No.18353/2022 contained in Ex.D11, Ex.P24 and the admitted/undisputed signature and thumb impression contained in Exs.P23, P25 and P26, to the Forensic Laboratory, Davangere, for the expert's opinion as to whether the said signatures and the thumb impressions are of the same person. It is submitted that the applications are filed to re-open the case and also to adduce further evidence. The Trial Court, under the impugned order, rejected all the applications. It is submitted that it is a specific case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court that Ex.D11-the alleged sale deed dated 06.07.1989 produced by the defendants is a forged instrument and the plaintiff No.1 executed a registered Will dated 08.06.2017 in favour of the plaintiff No.2 and when such a stand is taken, it is necessary to compare the signatures and the thumb impressions of the deceased plaintiff No.1 on the disputed instrument at Ex.D1 and the admitted documents at Exs.P23, P25 and P26. However, the Trial Court erroneously proceeded to reject the applications. Hence, it is admitted that while comparing - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20933 W.P. No.18353/2022 the signatures of the deceased plaintiff No.1, it would aid the Trial Court to decide the suit pending before it. In support of her contentions, she placed reliance on the decision of Dr.R.R.KONGOVI Vs. Dr.K.R.MANOHAR AND OTHERS1 and seeks to allow the petition. 3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Petitioners and meticulously perused the material available on record. 4. One Sri.Hussain Sab and 2 others filed a suit in O.S.No.11/2013 seeking for the relief of declaration that the plaintiff No.1 is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and also for delivery of possession of the suit schedule property. A perusal of the averments made in the plaint indicate that the defendants have exploited the innocence and illiteracy of the plaintiff No.1, fabricated the sale deed dated 06.07.1989 and they don't have any right over the property. The defendants have filed a detailed 1 2025 SCC Online KAR 7906 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20933 W.P. No.18353/2022 written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. The Trial Court framed the issues. The parties adduced the evidence. After conclusion of the trial, the petitioners-plaintiffs moved applications in I.A.Nos.11 to 13 for re-opening of the case, for a direction to the Sub- Registrar, Bhadravathi, to produce thumb impression register containing the signature of the executant and buyer in respect of the sale deed dated 06.07.1989, to refer the alleged sale deed at Ex.D11 and the admitted signatures at Ex.P23 that is the registered Will executed by the deceased plaintiff No.1 in favour of the plaintiff No.2 and Exs.P25 and P26-letters addressed by the deceased plaintiff No.1 to the ADLR, for expert's opinion. 5. The primary contention of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiff No.1 has never executed the sale deed dated 06.07.1989 and he has executed the registered Will at Ex.P23 in favour of the plaintiff No.2 and seek to compare the admitted signature on Ex.P23 with the disputed signature and the thumb impression found at Ex.D11. It is - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20933 W.P. No.18353/2022 to be noticed that in the objections filed to the aforesaid applications, the defendants have categorically disputed the signature of the plaintiff No.1 on Ex.P23 and also disputed the said Will. 6. Considering the fact that the present applications are filed by the legal representatives of the plaintiff No.1 who has executed the Will as well as Ex.D11, after his death, at a belated stage, the defendants have disputed Exs.P23, P25 and P26 and since there are no documents and signatures which are admitted by both the parties, the Trial Court proceeded to reject the applications. The Trial Court has also recorded the reasons for rejection of I.A.No.12 seeking to produce the thumb impression before the Court. The Trial Court, by a well reasoned order recorded detailed reasons as to why Ex.D11 and Exs.P23, P25 and P26 cannot be sent for handwriting expert to compare the signature of plaintiff No.1. I do not find any error in the said finding. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20933 W.P. No.18353/2022 7. The judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the case of Dr.R.R.KONGOVI referred supra is distinguishable on the facts of the case. In the said case, the parties have denied the Will and there was an admitted signature of the person. In the case on hand, the defendants are disputing the signatures found on Exs.P23, P25 and P26. Hence, there are no admitted signatures of the plaintiff No.1 and he is not alive. I am of the considered view that the order of the Trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity calling for interference in the present petition. 8. The petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32