Writ Petition No. 4619 of 2020 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11346 WP No. 4619 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4619 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA W/O GOVINDAIAH AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT DABBAGULI VILLAGE, MADBAL HOBLI, MAGADU TALUK-562 120 RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
Legal Reasoning
2. SMT. MUNIRATHNA W/O RAVIKUMAR AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT PUNUGAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE, THAVAREKERE HOBLI-562 130 BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BOTH THE PETITIONERS ARE REPTD. BY SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI GOVINDAIAH S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT DABBAGULI VILLAE, MADBAL HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK-562 120 RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. (BY SMT. SREE VIDYA G.K.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. HULLURAIAH S/O LATE BYRANNA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT HULVENAHALLI, TAVAREKERE HOBLI-562 130 BENGALURU SOUTH TQ. 2. SRI. N.SHIARAJU Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …PETITIONERS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11346 WP No. 4619 of 2020 AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O LATE MANJAPPA R/AT K.R.OFFICE, EQUIPMENT, 192, 20TH MAIN, 18TH CROSS, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 040. 3. SRI. HULLURAIAH S/O LATE HULLURAIAH CHIKKAHULLURAIAH AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, R/AT HULVENAHALLI VILLAGE TAVAREKERE HOBLI-562 130 BENGALURU SOUTH TQ. 4. SRI. PUTTABYRAIAH S/O LATE HULLURAIAH CHIKKAHULLURAIAH AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/AT HULVENAHALLI VILLAGE, TAVAREKERE HOBLI-562 130 BENGALURU SOUTH TQ. 5. SRI.MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE HULLURAIAH CHIKKAHULLURAIAH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT NO.12, RADHABAI BUILDING, KAMAKSHIPALYA, BENGALURU - 560 079. (BY SRI. CHANDRA SHEKAR.,ADVOCATE FOR R2; R4 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.02.2020 PASSED ON I.A.NO.XIV IN O.S.117/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DIVISION) AND JMFC, MAGADI VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER 26 RULE 10A R/W SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 SEEKING FOR APPOINTMENT OF COURT COMMISSIONER FOR SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION OF THE ADMITTED AND DISPUTED SIGNATURE OF PETITIONER NO.1 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11346 WP No. 4619 of 2020 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Plaintiffs in O.S.No.117/2009, on the file Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Magadi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') filed for the relief of declaration and partition are before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 15.02.2020 passed by the Trial Court rejecting their application in I.A.No.16 filed under Order 26 Rule 10(A) read with Section 151 of CPC. 2. The case of the petitioners is that their father Sri. Hulluraiah-defendant No.1 had executed deed of sale in favour of Sri. N. Shivaraju-defendant No.2 conveying the suit schedule property allegedly based on a power of attorney dated 16.05.2005 marked as Ex.D2 purportedly executed by the petitioner No.1/plaintiff No.1 in his favour. Petitioner No.1/plaintiff No.1 had disputed her signature on the said power of attorney/Ex.D2 and contended that it is not her signature. It is in this context, the above application in I.A.No.14 under order under Order 26 Rule 10(A) came to be filed. The Trial Court rejected the said application. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners/plaintiffs are before this Court. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11346 WP No. 4619 of 2020 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that when the plaintiff No.1 has seriously disputed her own signature on the alleged power of attorney, which is marked as Ex.D2 and sought for verification of her signature found on the said power of attorney with that of the admitted signature found in the Vakalath, plaint etc. That the Trial Court erred in rejecting the application, on the premise that it has power under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, 1872 to compare the admitted signatures with the disputed signatures. Counsel relied upon the Order dated 07.12.2017 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of K. Narasimha Reddy Vs. Sri. A. Gopala Reddy and others decided in W.P.No.55074/2016, in support of her contention. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that he had no objection in allowing the application and he does not have objection even now to allow the said application. In fact, he submits that obtaining expert opinion on verification of the signature would enure to the benefit of the respondent No.2/defendant No.2 as well. 5. Heard and perused the records.. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11346 WP No. 4619 of 2020 6. As regards the power of the Trial Court under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, 1872, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Thiruvendadam Pillai Vs. Navaneethammal and Another reported in (2008) 4 SCC 530 at paragraph No.16 has held as under: finger ''16. While there is no doubt that court can compare the disputed handwriting/signature/finger impression with the admitted handwriting/signature/finger impression, such comparison by court without the assistance of any expert, has always been considered to be hazardous and risky. When it is said that there is no bar to a court to compare the disputed impression with the admitted finger impression, it goes without saying that it can record an opinion or finding on such comparison, only after an analysis of the characteristics of the admitted finger impression and after verifying whether the same characteristics are found in the disputed finger impression. The comparison of thumb impressions cannot be casual or by a mere glance. Further, a finding in the judgment that there appeared to be no marked differences between the admitted thumb impression and disputed thumb impression, without anything more, cannot be accepted as a valid finding that the disputed signature is of the person who has put the admitted thumb impression. Where the court finds that the disputed finger impression and admitted thumb impression are clear and where the court is in a position to identify the characteristics of fingerprints, the court may record a finding on comparison, even in the absence of an expert's opinion. But where the disputed thumb impression is smudgy, vague or very light, the court should not hazard a guess by a casual perusal.'' two the 7. Though, under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, 1872, the Court are vested with the power to compare the hand writing/signature, it is always held to be hazardous and risky as the Court lacks the precise expertise to compare the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11346 WP No. 4619 of 2020 disputed signatures with the admitted signature and to come to the just conclusion. 8. In that view of the matter and in the light of there being no objection from the respondent No.2/defendant No.2, petition is allowed with the following directions;
Decision
ORDER (i). Impugned order dated 15.02.2020 is set- aside. (ii). I.A.No.16 filed under Order 26 Rule 10(A) read with Section 151 of CPC is allowed. (iii). The Trial Court shall refer the admitted signature of the plaintiff No.1/petitioner No.1 herein found on the plaint and vakalath and the disputed signature found on Ex.D2 to be verified by a specified Expert and obtain the opinion and thereafter proceed in accordance with law. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RL