- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4134 WP No. 25610 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 25610 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT SAROJAMMA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS W/O LATE SRI. YOGANANDA RESIDING AT YOGANANDA BADAVANE BYCHANAHALLI, 1ST BLOCK KUSHALNAGAR - 571 236. 2. VANI K.Y AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS W/O B.P.PRABHUDEVA R/AT BASAVAPATNA RAMANTAHPURA HOBLI, ARAKALGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 102. 3. VEENA K.Y AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS W/O SUBASHCHANDRA R/AT NO 7, SHANTHADURGA NILAYA GUNDRAO LAYOUT BYCHANAHALLI KUSHALNAAR - 571 236. 4. CHETHAN K.Y AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS S/O B.V.YOGANANDA, NO.301, VEERABHADRESHWARA NILAYA YOGANANDA BADAVANE, BYCHANAHALLI, 1ST BLOCK KUSHALNAAR - 571 236 Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4134 WP No. 25610 of 2025 5. REKHA K.V AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS W/O N.PRADEEP R/AT NO 690, REDDY COLONY GOVT HOSPITAL ROAD VIVEKANANDA NAGAR T.NARASIPURA - 571 124. 6. HARISHA K.V AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS S/O B.V.VEERABHADRAPPA 7. GIRISH K.V AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS S/O B.V.VEERABHADRAPPA BOTH PETITIONERS 6 & 7 ARE R/AT NO 302, BASAVESHWARA NILAYA RIVER ROAD, YOGANANDA BADAVANE BYCHANAHALLI, 1ST BLOCK KUSHALNAAR - 571 236. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAJENDRA M S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI SHIVANNA B V AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS S/O LATE C. VEERAPPA 2. SMT LATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS W/O LATE SRI PRAKASH 3. KIRAN B.P AGED BOUT 29 YEARS S/O LATE PRAKASH 4. KEERTHI B.P AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O LATE SRI PRAKASH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4134 WP No. 25610 of 2025 5. SMT. SARVAMANGALA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS W/O LATE MANJUNATHA 6. LAVANYA AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT.SARVAMANGALA 7. PUNYA AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SARVAMANGALA 8. SURESHA B.V AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O LATE C.VEERAPPA RESPONDENTS 1 TO 8 ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF BYCHANAHALLI VILLAGE, KUSHALNAGAR, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 236. 9. SMT SAVITHRI AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 10. SMT VANAJAKSHI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS BOTH RESPONDENTS 9 AND 10 ARE R/AT 1ST BLOCK, BYCHANAHALLI, KUSHALNAGAR KODAGU - 571 236. …RESPONDENTS - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4134 WP No. 25610 of 2025 THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16.07.2025 PASSED ON I.A NO. 3 IN O.S. NO. 22/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SOMVARPET VIDE ANNEXURE -A, ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the defendants in O.S.No.22 of 2022 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Somvarpet, Kodagu District is directed against the impugned order dated 16.07.2025 passed on I.A.No.3, whereby the said application filed by the respondents/plaintiffs under Section 151 of CPC to impound the Release Deed dated 27.04.1958 produced by the respondents/plaintiffs themselves was allowed by the Trial Court by holding as hereunder: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4134 WP No. 25610 of 2025 "The application filed by the plaintiffs U/s 151 of CPC is allowed and Ex.P-23 Release Deed is impounded. Office is directed to send the Ex.P23 Release Deed to the District Register, Madikeri for Stamps for calculate of deficit stamp duty and penalty of Ex-P23. Call on by 23-08-2025". 2. It is relevant to state that by virtue of the impugned order, the respondents-plaintiffs themselves having sought for impounding the alleged release deed dated 27.04.1958, after adjudication, the respondent would themselves have to pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty, if any, on the said document. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that any prejudice would be caused to the petitioners/defendants by the impugned order, which does not warrant interference by this Court in the present petition. 3. In so far as the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that though the said document had not been marked as an exhibit and the Trial - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4134 WP No. 25610 of 2025 Court has erroneously came to the conclusion that the alleged release deed was marked as Ex.P23 is concerned, in the event, it is found that the said document has not been marked as an exhibit by the Trial Court, the Trial Court is directed to peruse the records and proceed further in the matter. 4. Upon reconsideration, re-evaluation and re-appreciation of the entire material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court allowing I.A.No.3 cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor can the same said to have occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in the cases of (i) Radhey Shaym & others Vs. Chhabi Nath & others (2015) 5 SCC 423 (ii) K.P.Natarajan & others Vs. Muthalammal & others AIR 2021 SC 3443 (iii) Mohammed Ali Vs. Jaya (2022) 10 SCC 477. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4134 WP No. 25610 of 2025 5. Accordingly, petition is hereby dismissed. All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept/left open and no opinion is expressed on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE DH/SRL List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11