Full Judgment
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 36971 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. MANJUNATH V. S/O C. VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O SEEGIHALLI VILLAGE, KANNAMANGALA POST VIA KADUGODI BENGALURU -560067 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.R.HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA AGED 73 YEARS, R/O SEEGIHALLI VILLAGE, Digitally signed by KANNAMANGALA POST, VIA KADUGODI SHARADAVANI BENGALURU -560 067 B Location: High Court of Karnataka V. NARASIMHA MURTHY SINCE DEAD, REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS
2. SMT. BHAGYAMMA W/O V. NARASIMHA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 226, SEEGIHALLI, BENGALURU -560 067
3. SMT. PALLAVI D/O V. NARASIMHA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS -2- R/O D.NO. 226, SEEGIHALLI, BENGALURU -560067
4. SRI. AJITH S/O V. NARASIMHAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/O D.NO. 226, SEEGIHALLI, BENGALURU -560067
5. V GOPAL S/O C. VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/O SEEGIHALLI VILLAGE, BENGALURU -560 067
6. G.S.R.C.V. PRASAD RAO S/O G. RAMA RAO, AGED MAJOR, R/O A/1, SAI RANGA MARUTHI LAY OUT, BELATHUR, KADUGODI POST, BENGALURU -560 067
7. A.SRINIVASALU S/O. A.KRISHNAIAH AGED 53 EARS R/O. NO.27-292/1, TELECOM COLONY, CHITTOR, AP. …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS DATED 12/09/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED IV ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT ON UN-NUMBERED I.A. IN O.S. NO. 1065/2004, THE COPY OF THE SAME IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-E TO THE WRIT PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO DISMISS THE SAID I.A. FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF/ RESPONDENT NO. 1 ABOVE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: -3- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
This petition by defendant No.1 in O.S.No.1065/2004 on the file of the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural
District, Bangalore is directed against the impugned order
dated 12.09.2025, whereby the application filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff under Order XXVI Rule 10-A seeking reference of the disputed signature found in Exhibit P-7(c) with the admitted signature found in Exhibit D-47(a) to a Court Commissioner/Handwriting expert was allowed by the trial Court by holding as under: "ORDER ON I.A UNDER ORDER 26 Rule 10 (A) OF CPC DATED 09.04.2025 FILED BY plaintiff
Above application is filed by plaintiff seeking to refer the disputed signature in Ex.P.7(c) and admitted signature in Ex.D..47(a) to the Hand Writing Expert in order to prove the case of the plaintiff beyond all reasonable doubts. In support of application, plaintiff has filed affidavit and prayed to allow the application.
2. On the other hand, defendants have filed objection and prayed to dismiss the application filed by plaintiff.
3. Perused records. The suit is filed by the plaintiff
against defendants seeking for declaration of title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. After completion of evidence by both side parties to the suit. The plaintiff counsel has filed similar application -4- under order 26 Rule 10(A) of CPC to refer the disputed and admitted signatures in Ex.P.7 (c) and Ex.D.47 (a) which came to be allowed. However, the FSL Officer has sent back the said Exhibits stating to refer the above documents for hand writing expert.
4. The plaintiff in the present application stated that,
DW.1 has denied his signature in Ex.P.7. Hence, it is necessary to send Ex.P.7 for hand writing expert opinion to compare the same with admitted signature of DW.1 found in Ex.D.47(a) which is Vakalath. It is stated that, the opinion of expert is very much necessary to prove the plaintiff's case.
5. On the other hand, the defendants contend that,
the signature in Ex.P.7(c) and Ex.D.47(a) are different and they are signatures between the period of 40 years. Hence, the signatures would not tally due to the age fact of the person. Hence, the sending the above documents for expert opinion is unnecessary. Further submitted that, similar application was filed by the plaintiff which kept in abeyance. Hence, prayed to dismiss the above application.
6. It is noticed that, the defendant no.1 has denied
signature in Ex.P.7 which is the unregistered palupatty dated 10.10.1983. Hence, plaintiff requires to prove the signature of defendant no.1 in Ex.P.7. As such, present application is filed in order to obtain the opinion of Hand Writing Expert with respect to disputed signature of defendant no.1 in Ex.P.7 (c) and admitted signature of defendant no.1 in Ex.D.47(c). From the records, it appears that proving the signature of defendant no.1 in the partition deed appears to be necessary for the plaintiff to prove his case. Moreover, this court has already allowed the similar IA filed by plaintiff and sent above records to the FSL.
However, as the FSL has returned the records requesting to send the same to Hand Writing -5- Experts, the present application is filed by the plaintiff. Hence, no prejudice would cause to the defendants, if above application is allowed. Under these circumstances, the following:
ORDER
IA Under Order 26 Rule 10(A) of CPC dated 09.04.2025 filed by plaintiff is hereby allowed. Office is directed to send Ex.P.7(c) and Ex.P.47(c) to the Truth Lab, Bangalore for opinion of the expert. The plaintiff counsel is directed to furnish the DD. of Rs.15,000/- towards expert opinion fee approximately. Call on 03.11.2025"
2. Upon re-appreciation, re-evaluation and re-
consideration of the entire material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the trial Court permitting comparison of the disputed signature contained in Exhibit P-7(c) with the admitted signature contained in Exhibit D-47(a) cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in the cases of Radhey Shyam and Ors. vs. Chhabi Nath and Ors [(2015) 5 SCC 423], K.P.Natarajan and Ors. vs. Muthalammal and Ors -6- [AIR 2021 SC 3443] and Mohd. Ali v. V.Jaya [(2022) 10 SCC 477].
3. It is also pertinent to note that since the
petitioner/defendant No.1 would have an opportunity to file objections to the report of the Handwriting Expert/Court Commissioner as well as examine/cross-examine him, if he so desires, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner/defendant No.1 by permitting the handwriting expert to compare the disputed signature in Exhibit P-7(c) with the admitted signatures on Exhibit D-47(a).
4. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the trial Court cannot be said to have occasioned failure of justice warranting interference in the present petition.
5. In the result, the following:
ORDER
i) Petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. ii) Liberty is reserved in favour of both parties to file their objections, if any, to the report to be -7- submitted by the Handwriting Expert/Court Commissioner. iii) Liberty is also reserved in favour of both parties to examine/cross-examine the Handwriting Expert/Court Commissioner, if they so desire. iv) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter including the report of the Court Commissioner and evidence submitted by him are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE VM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3