- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:275 WP No. 100176 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO.100176 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: ANITA D/O. ACHUTHRAO DESAI, AFTER MARRIAGE CALLED AS ANITA W/O. AMAR KINI, AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. C/O. ANTONIO FERNANDIS, H.NO.818, ST. AGOSTINHO, NEAR HAPPY CEMENT AGENCY, CALAPHOR SANTA CRUZ, NORTH GOA-403005. &PETITIONER (BY SRI. SURESH S.SHETTEMMANAVAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI. ACHUTHRAO S/O. KRISHNARAO DESAI, AGE. 78 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. C/O. ANTONIO FERNANDIS, H.NO.818 ST. AGOSTINHO, NEAR HAPPY CEMENT AGENCY, CALAPHOR SANTA CRUZ, NORTH GOA-403005. 2. HANAMANT GUDI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR9S SMT. JAYASHREE W/O. VIJAYVITTAL GUDI, AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. MACHAPUR, TQ. KALAGHATGI, DIST. DHARWAD-581204. Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:275 WP No. 100176 of 2026 3. SRI. VYASAKUMAR S/O. HANUMANTH GUDI, AGE. MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MACHAPUR, TQ. KALAGHATGI, DIST. DHARWAD-581204. 4. VADIRAJ S/O. HANUMANTH GUDI, AGE. MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MACHAPUR, TQ. KALAGHATGI, DIST. DHARWAD-581204. 5. SRI. VASANTH S/O. HANUMANTH GUDI, AGE. MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MACHAPUR, TQ. KALAGHATGI, DIST. DHARWAD-581204. 6. SRI. VENKATESH S/O. HANUMANTH GUDI, AGE. MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MACHAPUR, TQ. KALAGHATGI, DIST. DHARWAD-581204. 7. MADVACHARYA GUDI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR9S SRI. GURURAJ S/O. MADHVACHARYA GUDI, AGE. MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MACHAPUR, TQ. KALAGHATGI, DIST. DHARWAD-581204. 8. SMT. PREMA W/O. KRISHNA NAVARATNA, AGE. MAJOR, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. MACHAPUR, TQ. KALAGHATGI, DIST. DHARWAD-581204. 9. SMT. LAXMI @ SUBHADRA W/O. VADIRAJ BAGALI, AGE. MAJOR, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. MACHAPUR, TQ. KALAGHATGI, DIST. DHARWAD-581204. 10. SMT. DAMAYANTI W/O. MADHVACHARYA GUDI, AGE. MAJOR, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. MACHAPUR, TQ. KALAGHATGI, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:275 WP No. 100176 of 2026 DIST. DHARWAD-581204. 11. SRI. RAMESH S/O. TIMMAJI DESAI, AGE. 72 YEARS, OCC. PVT. WORK, R/O. 1ST CROSS, GANDHINAGAR, DHARWAD-580004. 12. SRI. UMESH S/O. TIMMAJI DESAI, AGE. 67 YEARS, OCC. RTD., R/O. KELKAR COMPOUND, MAHASHI ROAD, MALAMADDI, DHARWAD-580007. 13. SMT. SUMAN D/O. ACHUTHRAO DESAI, [AFTER MARRIAGE CALLED AS SUMAN B.TAPAS] AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. C/O. BALADISKHIT TAPAS, DATTA ABHILASHSA, 6TH CROSS, MALAMADDI, NARAYAN RESIDENCY, GTS, DHARWAD-580007. 14. SMT. POORNIMA D/O. ACHUTHRAO DESAI, [AFTER MARRIAGE CALLED AS POORNIMA V.KULKARNI] AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. C/O. H.NO.2883/B, 14TH MAIN, RAJAJI NAGAR, 2ND STAGE 8E9 BLOCK, SUBRAMANYA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560010. &RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER ON IA NO.XXI PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT KALAGHATGI IN OS NO.28/2022 DATED 06/11/2025 WHICH IS PRODUCED UNDER - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:275 WP No. 100176 of 2026 ANNEXURE-G, BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 06.11.2025 in I.A.No.21 in O.S.No.28/2022 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Kalaghatgi (for short <the Trial Court=). 2. The petitioner before this Court is the plaintiff. The suit is filed for partition. This application i.e., I.A.No.21 is filed under Order XIV Rule 5 of CPC for framing Additional Issue No.1 to 9. The Trial Court, by order impugned, has dismissed the said application. While dismissing the same, the Trial Court observed that it has framed issues based on the pleadings of the parties. The matter is posted for further evidence of defendants. It is the duty of the Court to frame proper issues based on pleadings of parties and documents placed on record. In the present case on - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:275 WP No. 100176 of 2026 hand, alleged relinquishment deed has not been produced by plaintiffs or defendants. Mere suggestions made to the witness during the course of cross-examination by the defendants or contention taken in the written statement is not a ground to shift the burden upon the defendants. The defendants have not sought counter-claim over the suit properties. Therefore, shifting burden of proof of relinquishment deed dated 02.01.1943 on defendants is not tenable. The proposed issues, as sought by the plaintiffs, are not necessary to decide the matter in controversy between the parties. The Trial Court has further observed that the plaintiffs have approached the Court and burden lies on them to prove their case and they cannot rely upon defects of the case of the defendants. Moreover, if any issues are necessary, it can frame at any stage of the trial before passing of the judgment. It appears that the plaintiffs, to drag on the matter, have filed this untenable application and same is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the Trial Court had dismissed the application. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that in fact, the relinquishment deed is marked as Ex.D.32 and the said finding of the Trial Court that the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:275 WP No. 100176 of 2026 relinquishment deed is not produced by the plaintiffs or the defendants is incorrect and contrary to the evidence on record. It is submitted that the Trial Court has framed the issues on 21.10.2022. He submits that the Issue No.3 is whether the plaintiffs prove that defendant No.2A to 2E and defendant No.3A to 3D are not the absolute owners of the suit properties by virtue of mutation No.330. In fact, the burden is placed upon the plaintiff. It is submitted that for the effective adjudication of the dispute additional issue needs to be framed. It is submitted that if this issue is not framed and if any amount of evidence without there being a pleading, issue would be of no consequence and the Court ought to have allowed this application. It is submitted that it is a question of law and at any point of time the issue can be raised. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the material on record. The suit is for partition, separate possession and declaration that the mutation is not binding. According to them, the defendants, who are unconnected with the plaintiff9s family, are claiming title to the property and they have mentioned about a relinquishment deed. It is a suit filed by - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:275 WP No. 100176 of 2026 the plaintiffs and it is for the plaintiffs to prove that the property is a joint family property and being a member of the joint family property, the petitioner-plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for. With regard to the relinquishment deed and other things, the Trial Court has rightly held that there is no counter- claim by the defendants and there cannot be any burden on them to prove that whether the same is binding on the defendants and whether the said document is a genuine document or not. The issues were framed as long as back in the year 2022. Now, as far as the plaintiff's case is concerned, the Trial Court has rightly held that he is unconnected with the relinquishment deed and without such an issue, the plaintiff can always prove that whether he is entitled for the partition, separate possession and declaration. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Trial Court had rightly considered all these aspects and dismissed the application. This Court finds no reasons to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Trial Court. Hence, this Court is passing the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is dismissed. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:275 WP No. 100176 of 2026 (ii) All I.As., in this writ petition stands closed. Sd/- JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI YAN CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55