- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010046352018 NC: 2026:KHC:48986 WP No. 14170 of 2018 C/W WP No. 14934 of 2019 WP No. 51052 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 14170 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 14934 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) WRIT PETITION NO. 51052 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) IN WP NO.14170/2018 BETWEEN: K.T.GEETHA D/O THOTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O KARAKUCHI VILLAGE - 577 228 LAKKVALI HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK …PETITIONER (BY SRI. V.V.GUNJAL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. T.H.VASUDEVAPPA S/O HUCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O KARAKUCHI B COLONY VILLAGE LAKKVALI HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK - 577 228 Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010046352018 NC: 2026:KHC:48986 WP No. 14170 of 2018 C/W WP No. 14934 of 2019 WP No. 51052 of 2019 2. K.R.HALAPPA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS S/O RUDRAPPA 3. K.H.ONKARASWAMY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O K R HALAPPA 4. K.H.SHANTHAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O K.R.HALAPPA RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4 R/O KARAKUCHI VILLAGE - 577 228 LAKKVALI HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK 5. SMT.TAYAMMA W/O THOTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS 6. K.T.NAGENDRAPPA S/O THOTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 7. K.T.RAMESH KUMAR S/O THOTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS ALL R/O KARAKUCH B COLONY VILLAGE LAKKVALI HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK - 577228 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.RAVI H K, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.LOKESH G, ADVOCATE FOR R.1; R.2 AND R.6 ARE SERVED; - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010046352018 NC: 2026:KHC:48986 WP No. 14170 of 2018 C/W WP No. 14934 of 2019 WP No. 51052 of 2019 NOTICE TO R.3 IS H/S V/O/D 09.07.2019; NOTICE TO R.5 AND 7 ARE D/W V/O/D 18.12.2019) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-A DTD 2.3.2018 REJECTING IA NO.15 BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVI JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION AND JMFC, TARIKERE IN O.S.NO.2/2015 AND CONSEQUENTLY ISSUE DIRECTIONS TO REFER THE MATTER FOR SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION BY ALLOWING IA NO.15 AND ETC. IN WP NO. 14934/2019 BETWEEN: 1. K T GEETHA D/O THOTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, AGRICULTURISTS, R/O KARAKUCHI VILLAGE-577228 LAKKVALLI HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK.-577228. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. V V GUNJAL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. T H VASUDEVAPPA S/O HUCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O KARAKUCHI B COLONY VILLAGE, LAKKVALLI HOBALI, TARIKERE TALUK-577228. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010046352018 NC: 2026:KHC:48986 WP No. 14170 of 2018 C/W WP No. 14934 of 2019 WP No. 51052 of 2019 2. TAYAMMA W/O LATE THOTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, 3. K T NAGENDRAPPA S/O LATE THOTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 4. K T RAMESH KUMAR S/O LATE THOTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 5. K R HALAPPA S/O RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, 6. K H ONKARASWAMY S/O K R HALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 7. K H SHANTHAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O K R HALAPPA, R2 TO R7 ARE R/O KARAKUCHI VILLAGE LAKKAVALI HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK. LAKKVALLI HOBALI, TARIKERE TALUK-577228. ...RESPONDENTS PROPOSED R1(A), R1(B), R1(C), R1(G), R1(H), R1(I), R4(A), R4(B), R4(C), R7(A) AND R7(B) ARE SERVED THIS WP UNDER IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-A DATED 28TH MARCH 2019 ALLOWING I.A.NO.22 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRL. JMFC, TARIKERE IN O.S.NO.02/2015. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010046352018 NC: 2026:KHC:48986 WP No. 14170 of 2018 C/W WP No. 14934 of 2019 WP No. 51052 of 2019 IN WP NO. 51052/2019 BETWEEN: 1. K T SUJATHA D/O THOTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/ KARAKUNCHI VILLAGE-577228 LAKKVALLI HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. V V GUNJAL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. T H VASUDEVAPPA S/O HUCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/ KARAKUCHI B COLONY VILLAGE LAKKAVALLI HOBLI TARIKERE TLAUK-577228 2. K R HALAPPA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, S/O RUDRAPPA 3. K H ONKARASWAMY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O K R HALAPPA 4. K H SHANTHAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O K R HALAPPA R2 TO R4 ARE R/O KARAKUCHI VILLAGE-57722 LAKKAVALI HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010046352018 NC: 2026:KHC:48986 WP No. 14170 of 2018 C/W WP No. 14934 of 2019 WP No. 51052 of 2019 5. K T GEETHA D/O THOTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 6. K T NAGENDRAPPA S/O THOTAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 7. K T RAMESH KUMAR S/O THOTAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R5 TO R7 ARE AGRICULTURISTS R/O KARAKUCHI VILLAGE-577228 LAKKAVALI HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK ...RESPONDENTS THIS W.P. UNDER IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ANNX-A DATED 14TH OCTOBER 2019 DISMISSING IA NO.25 BY THE CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION, TARIKERE IN O.S.NO.02/2015. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER These three writ petitions arise out of the same suit, namely, O.S.No.2/2015, and are between the same parties. Since the issues involved in all three petitions are - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010046352018 NC: 2026:KHC:48986 WP No. 14170 of 2018 C/W WP No. 14934 of 2019 WP No. 51052 of 2019 interconnected, they are taken up together for consideration and disposal. 2. W.P.No.14170/2018 is filed by defendant No.1 calling in question the order passed by the learned Trial Court on I.A.No.15, filed under Order XXVI Rule 10A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (for short ‘CPC’) seeking scientific investigation for comparison of the disputed signatures appearing on the suit agreement marked as Ex.P.1 with the admitted signatures of the defendants. 3. W.P.No.51052/2019 is filed by the legal heir of defendant No.2. Defendant No.2 had already filed her written statement in the suit. Upon her death, the present petitioner, claiming through defendant No.2, was brought on record and filed an additional written statement setting up an independent plea. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the learned Trial Court whereby the said - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010046352018 NC: 2026:KHC:48986 WP No. 14170 of 2018 C/W WP No. 14934 of 2019 WP No. 51052 of 2019 additional written statement has been directed to be taken off the record. 4. W.P.No.14934/2019 is filed by the plaintiff calling in question the order passed by the learned Trial Court on I.A.No.22. The said application was filed by the plaintiff seeking permission to proceed with the suit on the premise that there was no subsisting order of stay in the present writ petitions. The learned Trial Court, noticing that no order of stay had been extended in W.P.No.14170/2018, allowed the application and permitted the plaintiff to proceed with the suit. The said order is called in question in the present petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties in all three petitions and perused the records. Findings in W.P.No.14170/2018 6. The petitioner, who is defendant No.1 before the Trial Court, is aggrieved by the order passed on I.A.No.15 - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010046352018 NC: 2026:KHC:48986 WP No. 14170 of 2018 C/W WP No. 14934 of 2019 WP No. 51052 of 2019 filed under Order XXVI Rule 10A read with Section 151 of CPC. The plaintiff has instituted the suit seeking specific performance of the contract on the basis of the suit agreement. The petitioner and the other defendants have disputed the suit agreement contending that their signatures were obtained on blank stamp papers and that the said blank stamp papers have subsequently been misused by the plaintiff for instituting the suit. 7. The defendants, therefore, sought scientific investigation for comparison of the signatures appearing on the disputed suit agreement with their admitted signatures. The learned Trial Court, however, rejected the application, principally having regard to the evidence already tendered by the petitioner, who is examined as D.W.1. A perusal of the evidence of D.W.1 would indicate that the petitioner has identified not only her own signature appearing on the suit agreement, but also the signatures of her father, sister and brothers appearing - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010046352018 NC: 2026:KHC:48986 WP No. 14170 of 2018 C/W WP No. 14934 of 2019 WP No. 51052 of 2019 thereon. The said signatures have been marked through the petitioner herself. 8. This Court has also carefully examined the chief- examination of the petitioner-D.W.1. The petitioner has categorically admitted that her signature was obtained by the plaintiff on a blank paper and that the same has subsequently been misused for creating the suit agreement. Thus, there is no dispute, insofar as the present application is concerned, regarding the signatures of the defendants appearing on the disputed document. The defence set up by the defendants is that, though the signatures are theirs, the same were obtained on blank stamp papers and were subsequently misused by the plaintiff. 9. It is well settled that where the execution of a document is admitted by the executant, but the contents or the circumstances under which the document came into existence are disputed, the burden would be upon the - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010046352018 NC: 2026:KHC:48986 WP No. 14170 of 2018 C/W WP No. 14934 of 2019 WP No. 51052 of 2019 party disputing the contents or alleging misuse to establish the same by leading appropriate evidence. In the present case, the defendants, having admitted their signatures on the suit agreement, are required to establish, by way of rebuttal evidence, that such signatures were obtained on blank stamp papers and that there was no intention on their part to execute an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff. 10. It is in this backdrop that the learned Trial Court was justified in declining to order scientific investigation for comparison of the signatures. When the signatures appearing on the disputed document are themselves admitted by the defendants and the defence is one of misuse of blank stamp papers, the proposed comparison of signatures would not advance the defence set up by the defendants. Consequently, this Court finds no error or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Trial Court warranting interference in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010046352018 NC: 2026:KHC:48986 WP No. 14170 of 2018 C/W WP No. 14934 of 2019 WP No. 51052 of 2019 Accordingly, W.P.No.14170/2018 is liable to be dismissed. Findings in W.P.No.51052/2019 11. The petitioner in W.P.No.51052/2019 is the legal heir of defendant No.2 and seeks to place on record an additional written statement by setting up an independent and distinct plea. The question as to the extent to which a legal representative, who comes on record in place of a deceased defendant, can introduce a plea inconsistent with or contrary to the defence already taken by the deceased defendant is no longer res integra. 12. It is a settled principle that a legal representative, who derives his or her right through the deceased defendant, cannot ordinarily set up a plea inconsistent with the defence of the deceased, particularly where the legal representative claims no independent right in the subject matter of the suit. In the present case, defendant No.2 had already entered appearance and filed - 13 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010046352018 NC: 2026:KHC:48986 WP No. 14170 of 2018 C/W WP No. 14934 of 2019 WP No. 51052 of 2019 her written statement. It is also not in dispute that defendant No.2 had adopted the written statement filed by defendant No.1. 13. Upon the death of defendant No.2, the present petitioner, who is her daughter, was brought on record as her legal heir and thereafter sought to file an additional written statement setting up an independent plea. The plaintiff objected to the same and filed an application under Order XXII Rule 4 of CPC seeking to strike off the additional written statement on the ground that the petitioner, having been brought on record only as the legal representative of defendant No.2, could not introduce a defence inconsistent with the stand already taken by her mother. 14. This Court finds considerable force in the said objection. Admittedly, the petitioner claims through defendant No.2 and does not assert any independent right in the suit property. Her right, if any, is traced through her - 14 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010046352018 NC: 2026:KHC:48986 WP No. 14170 of 2018 C/W WP No. 14934 of 2019 WP No. 51052 of 2019 mother. Therefore, she steps into the shoes of the deceased defendant and cannot be permitted to introduce a completely new or conflicting defence contrary to the stand taken by the deceased defendant during her lifetime. The fact that defendant No.2 had adopted the written statement filed by defendant No.1 assumes significance in this regard. 15. The learned Trial Court, having regard to the nature of the claim made by the petitioner and the defence already taken by the deceased defendant, was justified in directing that the additional written statement filed by the petitioner be taken off the record. The impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error or infirmity warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, W.P.No.51052/2019 is liable to be dismissed. Findings in W.P.No.14934/2019 16. In view of the dismissal of W.P.Nos.14170/2018 and 51052/2019, the grievance raised in - 15 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010046352018 NC: 2026:KHC:48986 WP No. 14170 of 2018 C/W WP No. 14934 of 2019 WP No. 51052 of 2019 W.P.No.14934/2019 does not survive for consideration. The said writ petition was directed against the order permitting the plaintiff to proceed with the suit on the ground that there was no subsisting order of stay, particularly in W.P.No.14170/2018. Since the said writ petition itself has now been dismissed, W.P.No.14934/2019 has been rendered infructuous. 17. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, do not advance the case of the petitioner and have no application to the controversy involved herein. 18. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) W.P.Nos.14170/2018 and 51052/2019 are dismissed. - 16 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010046352018 NC: 2026:KHC:48986 WP No. 14170 of 2018 C/W WP No. 14934 of 2019 WP No. 51052 of 2019 (ii) Consequently, W.P.No.14934/2019 is rendered infructuous and the same is accordingly disposed of. (iii) Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10