Dismissed

Shri.Tirakappa S/O Halappa v. Gonappa S/O Huligeppa

Karnataka HC20 Mar 2023WP/143418/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition challenging an order where the Civil Judge rejected an application to appoint a handwriting expert. The Court held that since the trial was incomplete, the claim of premature application was valid, though the plaintiff could seek the expert opinion post-trial.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no interference with the impugned order; plaintiff permitted to move for expert opinion after trial concludes.

Shri.Tirakappa S/O Halappa Vs Gonappa S/O… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No.143418 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.143418 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHRI TIRAKAPPA S/O HALAPPA THROUGH HIS GPA HOLDER, RAMANNA S/O TIRUKAPPA AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE EMPLOYEE & AGRICULTURE, R/O: GUDADUR VILLAGE, TQ: GANGAVATHI, NOW R/AT HANAKUNTI VILLAGE, TQ: KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI GURULINGESWAR G.GADAG, ADV.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Date: 2023.03.28 10:45:16 +0530

¶14

GONAPPA S/O HULIGEPPA AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GUDADUR VILLAGE, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶15

MURTUZASAB S/O IMAMSAB AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GUDADUR VILLAGE, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶16

NAGAPPA S/O HULIGAPPA AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GUDADUR VILLAGE, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶17

LINGANAGOUDA S/O AYYANAGOUDA POLICEPATIL,

¶18

¶19

WP No.143418 of 2020

¶20

AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GUDADUR VILLAGE, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL. SINCE DEAD THROUGH HIS LRS

¶21

4A. MALLIKARJUNAGOUDA S/O LINGANAGOIUDA POLICEPATIL AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GUDADUR VILLAGE, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶22

4B. SMT.SAVITRAMMA W/O MALLIKARJUNAGOUDA AGE: 36 YEARS, CC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: GUDADUR VILLAGE, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶23

MALLIKARJUNA S/O BASAIAH AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GUDADUR VILLAGE, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL. SINCE DEAD THROUGH HIS LRS

¶24

5(1) SMT.PARVATEMMA W/O LATE MALLIKARJUNA AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: GUDADUR VILLAGE, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶25

5(2) KUMARSWAMY S/O LATE MALLIKARJUNA AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GUDADUR VILLAGE, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING THIS COURT TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19/12/2019 PASSED BY THE HON BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE GANGAVATI IN O.S.NO.50/2014 ON I.A. 13 UNDER ORDER 26 RULE 10(A) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND SUCH OTHER RELIEFS.

¶28

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

WP No.143418 of 2020

ORDER

The captioned writ petition is filed by the plaintiff feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Judge on I.A.No.13, wherein the plaintiffs request to appoint handwriting expert to compare disputed thumb impression found in the registered sale deed is rejected by the learned Judge. The said order is under challenge.

¶33

The present petitioner has instituted a suit seeking relief of declaration of ownership and also to declare the registered sale deed dated 14.03.2000 and 10.01.2002 as illegal and null and void. At paragraph No.7 of the Plaint, plaintiff has claimed that these documents are fraudulent documents. Similar contentions is also taken at paragraph Nos.4 of the Plaint. Larned Judge has rejected this application on the premise that the application is moved before commencement of trial. Therefore, the learned judge was of the view that the present application is premature and cannot be considered.

¶34

¶35

WP No.143418 of 2020

¶36

Since Court has rejected an application on the

¶37

premise that the trial is yet to be concluded, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order under challenge.

¶38

Be that as it may. If the plaintiff has approached Court alleging that, the sale deeds are fraudulent documents and intends to seek finger print expert’s opinion, the Court has to consider as to whether plaintiff is entitled to seek an expert opinion. If a plea of fraud is alleged, the initial burden is always on the plaintiff and therefore, the party should not precluded from seeking best piece of evidence. Learned Judge has rejected the application only on the premise that it is premature. The plaintiff can move similar application after conclusion of trial. This Court at this stage is not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned judge. Writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly dismissed.

¶39

SD/JUDGE

¶40

¶41

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Shri.Tirakappa S/O Halappa v. Gonappa S/O Huligeppa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri.Tirakappa S/O Halappa v. Gonappa S/O Huligeppa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pawadeppa S/O Ramappa Vs Laxman S/O Balappa Babali

Papalal Punnappa Warale Vs Mohan Papalal Warale

Sri.Shaktiraj S/O. Nagesh Dandeli Vs Sunrise Mining Company Ltd.

Krishna Shaniyara Naika, Occ. Business Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.Subhas S/O Bharamappa Muttagi, Vs Smt.Kasturewwa W/O Shankrappa Savalagatagi

Basavaraj Guddappa Malebennur (Dead on 12.12.2008) Since Dead by His Lrs a)Smt Anusuya W/O Vs Ningappa S/O Guddappa Malebennur