Partly allowed

Lord Ayyappan Trust v. Sri. K Suresh

Karnataka HC7 Nov 2023WP/7276/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition in part and quashed the civil court order to the extent it permitted the production of an uncertified Hakku Patra, directing the respondent to seek appropriate records to establish the document.

What did the court decide?

Civil court order dated 18.01.2019 allowed to produce uncertified Hakku Patra quashed to that extent; respondent directed to file application for summons of records.

Lord Ayyappan Trust Vs Sri. K Suresh — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:39737 WP No. 7276 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7276 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

LORD AYYAPPAN TRUST NO.5, FLAT NO.105 5^TH MAIN, S T BED CHANDRA REDDY LAYOUT SRINIVAGALU, KORMANGALA 4^TH BLOCK, BANGALORE-560 047

¶7

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY K R PALANIAPPAN AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS S/O A M KARUPPAN CHETTIAR

¶8

Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

ITS JOINT SECRETARY SRI N MANOHAR S/O E NAGARAJAN AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI.DUSHYANTH ARADHYA H.C..,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SRI. K SURESH S/O KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT NO.350, 2^ND CROSS JAMBUSAVARI DINEE

¶14

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:39737 WP No. 7276 of 2019

¶15

KOTHANURU VILLAGE UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE-76.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI.V. ANANDA., ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TOQUASH THE ORDER DATED 18.1.2019 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1/18 BY THE XXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE, BANGALORE [CCH-7] [AT ANNEXURE-A] IN O.S.NO.2997/16 AND BE PLEASED TO REJECT THE I.A.NO.1/18 FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF /RESPONDENT [AT ANNEXURE-D].

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This petition is by the defendant in O.S. No.2997/2016 on the file of the XXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru [for short, the ‘ civil Court ’]. The petitioner has impugned the civil Court’s order dated 18.01.2019, and the civil Court by this order has allowed the respondent’s application [ IA No.1/2018 ] permitting the respondent

¶22

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:39737 WP No. 7276 of 2019

¶23

to produce certain documents and mark the same through his witness. These documents are marked as Exhibits P.1 to P.10, and the photocopies of the documents permitted by the civil Court to be produced and marked in Exhibits are annexed as Annexures - F to R.

¶24

Sri. Dushyanth Aradhya H.C, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the civil Court could not have allowed the respondent to produce photo copies of the documents unless these documents were certified copies and introduced as secondary evidence as is permissible under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [for short, the ‘ Evidence Act ’] and in this regard, the learned counsel proposes to rely upon Sections 63 and 65 thereof.

¶25

When queried, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not

¶26

¶27

NC: 2023:KHC:39737 WP No. 7276 of 2019

¶28

dispute that Annexures - G to R are the photocopies of the certified copies/ Encumbrance Certificate issued by the concerned Sub-Registrar and the certificates issued by the local authority, and the petitioner does not dispute the veracity of these documents though the relevance and the probative value of the same is not contested.

¶29

It follows from the afore that the petitioner’s grievance is essentially with regard to Annexure–F, a Hakku Patra which is dated 13.05.1972. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is purportedly issued by a Cooperative Society, but there is nothing to establish, as is required under the provisions of Section 63 of the Evidence Act, that this document is issued after verification of the original. There is considerable force in this submission, and the petitioner, unless establishes that Annexure – F is a certified copy and the conditions necessary to permit secondary

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:39737 WP No. 7276 of 2019

¶32

evidence, the civil Court could not have granted leave. Therefore, there must be interference on this limited score, but the respondent must also be reserved liberty to take such measure as would be permissible in law to secure appropriate records from the custody of the concerned to establish the asserted “ Hakku Patra ”. In the light of the afore, the following

¶33

ORDER

¶34

[a] The petition is allowed in part, and the civil Court’s impugned order dated 18.01.2019 is quashed only to the extent that the respondent is permitted to produce and mark a copy of the Hakku Patra dated 13.05.1972. The civil Court’s order dated 18.01.2019 permitting the respondent to produce and mark a copy of the Hakku Patra , consequent to this order, is to be ignored.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2023:KHC:39737 WP No. 7276 of 2019

¶37

[b] The respondent shall be at liberty to file appropriate application to summon appropriate records to establish the asserted Hakku Patra dated 13.05.1972. It would be needless to observe that though there is no interference with the civil Court’s impugned order as against other exhibits, the petitioner shall be at liberty to contest the relevance and probative value thereof.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

Lord Ayyappan Trust v. Sri. K Suresh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lord Ayyappan Trust v. Sri. K Suresh

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

Mrs. Magdelene Mary Vs Mr. Shilingaiah

Mr C L Rodrigues @ Mr Luvi Rodrigues Vs Mrs Philomena Rodrigues

Smt. Govardhini Jayakumar Thotambailu Vs Dr. K v Chidananda

Maneyamma Vs a Kankasabapathi

Nagarathnamma Vs Rajammanni

Sri Chandrappa H D Vs Smt Padma