Writ Petition No. 51931 of 2019 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10132 WP No. 51931 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 51931 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. DASEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O LATE SEETHAIAH @ SEETHEGOWDA, DEAD BY LRS. Digitally signed by ROOPA R U Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Legal Reasoning
1(a) SMT.SHIVAMMA 58 YEARS D/O LATE DASEGOWDA 1(b) SRI NAGESHA 37 YEARS S/O LATE DASEGOWDA 1(c) SRI D.KUMAR 34 YEARS S/O LATE DASEGOWDA ALL ARE RESIDING AT CHOWDRIPALYA, KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK AND ALSO RESIDING AT VALAGEREPURA VILLAGE, AMRUTHUR HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572123. 2. V S GOPALAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O LATE SEETHAIAH @ SEETHEGOWDA, - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10132 WP No. 51931 of 2019 RESIDING AT VALAGEREPURA VILLAGE, AMRUTHUR HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572123. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. R CHANDRANNA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. V.S.SEETHARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O LATE SEETHAIAH @ SEETHEGOWDA, SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE 1(a) SMT.SANNAMMA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS W/O LATE V.S.SEETHARAMAIAH RESIDING AT VALAGEREPURA VILLAGE AMRUTHUR HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 123. 2. 3. SRI MUDDEEREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O LATE SEETHAIAH @ SEETHEGOWDA, WARDEN, GOVERNMENT BOYS HOSTEL, KABBALLI, GUNDLUPETE TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT PIN CODE-571319. SMT.HUCHAMMA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, D/O LATE SEETHAIAH @ SEETHEGOWDA AND W/O P C GOPALAKRISHNA, RESIDENT OF PAVASANDRA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 111. 4. SMT.CHANNAMMA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, D/O LATE SEETHAIAH @ SEETHEGOWDA, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10132 WP No. 51931 of 2019 W/O KRISHNA, R/O HALEBANDARAHALLI VILLAGE, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577301. 5. KARIGOWDA S/O LATE SEETHAIAH @ SEETHEGOWDA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS., 5(a) SMT. SHANTHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, W/O LATE KARIGOWDA, 5(b) GEETHA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS D/O LATE KARIGOWDA 6. 7. BOTH ARE RESIDING AT VALAGEREPURA VILLAGE, AMRUTHUR HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572123. SMT.JAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, D/O LATE SEETHAIAH AND W/O RAMESH, R/O SHRUNGARASAGARA VILLAGE, HULIYURUDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572130. SMT.SENAMMA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, D/O LATE SEETHAIAH @ SEETHEGOWDA, AND W/O SHANKAREGOWDA, RESIDING AT VALAGEREPURA VILLAGE, AMRUTHUR HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572123. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10132 WP No. 51931 of 2019 8. 9. SMT. CHIKKATHAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, D/O LATE SEETHAIAH @ SEETHEGOWDA AND W/O RAJA, RESIDING AT NO.29/1, 13TH CROSS, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU-560079. SRI V S PRAKASHA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/O LATE SEETHAIAH @ SEETHEGOWDA, RESIDING AT NO.29/1, 13TH CROSS, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU-560079. 10. SRI V S SANTHOSH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O LATE SEETHARAMAIAH, RESIDING AT VALAGEREPURA VILLAGE, AMRUTHUR HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572123. 11. SRI GIRISHA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, S/O LATE SEETHARAMAIAH, RESIDING AT VALAGEREPURA VILLAGE, AMRUTHUR HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572123. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI PHANIRAJ KASHYAP, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R11; SRI K.R.SRINIVASAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4, R6 TO R9; SRI P.M.SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1(a) AND R(10); R5(a) and R5(b) SERVED] THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 12.11.2019, MADE ON IA NO.31 IN O.S.NO.26/2008 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10132 WP No. 51931 of 2019 JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNIAL AND ALLOW THE SAME AS PRAYED FOR BY THE PETITIONERS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Petitioners, who were plaintiffs in O.S.No.26/2008 are before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 12.11.2019 passed by the trial Court rejecting the application in I.A.No.31 which was filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXVI Rule 10(a) CPC seeking to appoint any handwriting expert to compare and examine alleged Left hand Thumb Mark (LTM) of one Smt.Senamma found in Ex.D24 with LTM found in Ex.P62. 2. The case of the petitioners/plaintiffs is that defendants have produced an unregistered Will dated 22.10.1977 alleged to have been executed by Senamma which is marked as Ex.D24. Plaintiffs have disputed the execution of the said Will by Senamma. In order to prove the said contention plaintiffs had produced Ex.P62 a registered Mortgage Deed dated 17.12.1967 said to have been executed by said Senamma. Case of the plaintiffs is that since said - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10132 WP No. 51931 of 2019 document at Ex.P62 had been executed at an undisputed point of time the said document could have been relied upon by the trial Court for the purpose of comparison and examining the authenticity and genuineness of the LTM found at Ex.D24. 3. The trial Court taking note of the LTM found even on the said Ex.P62 dated 17.12.1967 produced by the respondents, came to the conclusion since no admitted LTM of Senamma is available, application filed by the petitioners could not be considered, accordingly dismissed the same. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners assailing the said order submits that the respondents could not have disputed the LTM found on Ex.P62 a registered Mortgage deed which was executed on 17.12.1967 at this point of time which aspect of the matter the trial Court has not considered. Hence seeks for allowing of the petition. 5. Heard and perused the records. 6. By the impugned order the trial Court has declined to accept the contention of the petitioners that LTM found on Ex.P62 is that of Senamma and that the same could be referred - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10132 WP No. 51931 of 2019 to handwriting expert for comparison and examination of alleged LTM of Senamma found at Ex.D24. 7. However in view of the dispute raised by the defendants even to the LTM of Senamma on the said mortgage deed, the trial Court has declined to allow the application. 8. Admitted signature/LTM meaning the signature/LTM which are admitted by the contesting party. As rightly noted by the trial Court reference to handwriting expert could be made only if the contesting party has admitted the signature/LTM for the purpose of comparing the same with the disputed signature/LTM. In the instant case though the plaintiffs sought to produce Ex.P62 a registered Mortgage Deed dated 17.12.1967 purported to have been executed by Senamma which according to the plaintiffs could be treated as the admitted LTM, in view of the dispute raised by the defendants even to said LTM the trial Court has rejected the application. 8. No error can be found with regard to the same. Petition is accordingly dismissed. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:10132 WP No. 51931 of 2019 9. It is open for the petitioners to secure any other evidence/documents bearing LTM of Senamma and seek for reference of the same by the trial Court for verification. If such an application with necessary material is made, trial Court shall consider the same in accordance with law. SD/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SBN