Writ petitions filed against orders refusing to allow defendants to adduce further evidence and produce Wills in a succession suit. The High Court observed the reasoning of the Trial Court could not be faulted and dismissed the petitions.
The writ petitions praying for quashing of orders refusing leave to produce evidence were dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
�
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF AUGUST 2014
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION NO.31092 OF 2013 AND WRIT PETITION NO.33509 OF 2013 (GM-CPC)
Between:
Age: 62 years
Age: 26 years
Age: 28 years
All are r/a No.13, 3rd Cross 5th Main, Munikariyappa
Compound, Agrahara Dasarahalli Bangalore – 560 079 … Petitioners
(By Shri M.G.Ramakrishnaiah, Advocate)
�
And:
Age: 54 years
Age: 38 years
Age: 36 years
All are r/a No.13, 3rd Cross 5th Main, Munikariyappa Compound, Agrahara Dasarahalli Bangalore – 560 079 … Respondents
(By Shri H.B.Chandrashekar, Advocate)
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the relevant records and issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned orders on IA No.6 and 7 dated 22.9.12 passed by the I Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore in O.S.No.2192/2004 Ann-A and etc.
�
These Petitions coming on for Hearing this day, the Court made the following:-
O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
“12. In the present application, the 1st defendant by producing certain documents along with IA No.7 seeks production of 2 Wills and one khata extract. It is seen from written statement of defendants 1 to 2, that they have taken stand of Will dated 6.6.1990 executed by Late Narasimhamurthy. However as seen from the documents produced by the defendants with this application 1st document is certified copy of the Khata extract dated 2.2.2012. In fact this document khata extract was not at all produced earlier. This
�
document is much after filing of the suit. Hence, I am of the opinion that this is not a relevant document for just decision in the case.
�
M.Narasimhamurthy being the 1st defendant in this suit and is alive this document cannot be considered by the court during her lifetime. Hence I am of the opinion that when there is no mention made in the pleading of the Will which the defendant now seeks production, and the one pleaded is a different, I am, of the opinion that no justifiable grounds are made out to receive the Will on file this will produced by defendants 1 to 3. Hence the question of permitting the defendants to tender evidence in respect of Will purported to have been executed by 1st defendant does not arise. Hence I answer point No.2 and 3 in respect of IA No.7 in the negative.”
be faulted. Hence, the petitions are dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
RV
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should have interfered with the Trial Court's refusal to allow the production of additional documents including Wills without corresponding pleadings.
Smt. R. Sharadamma W/o late M. Narasimhamurthy and Others
Smt. Mangala Gowramma W/o late M. Narasimhamurthy and Others
Anand Byrareddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
