Dismissed

Chandrashekar Gurusiddappa Sullad, v. Smt.Gayatri W/O Ramesh Bagur

Karnataka HC22 Jun 2024WP/102194/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenged an order rejecting an application under Section 151 of the CPC to mark a Will. The Court held that under Section 68 of the Evidence Act, a Will requires testimony of an attesting witness and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with liberty to secure legal heirs or an attesting witness to identify the signature.

Chandrashekar Gurusiddappa Sullad, Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8455 WP No. 102194 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 102194 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

CHANDRASHEKAR GURUSIDDAPPA SULLAD, AGE: 57 YEARS, R/O. GANESH PET, HUBLI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD.

¶7

MANOHAR S/O. GURUSIDDAPPA SULLAD, AGE: 56 YEARS, R/O GANESH PET, HUBLI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD.

¶8

SRI. NIJALINGAPPA S/O. GURUSIDDAPPA SULLAD, AGE: 54 YEARS, R/O GANESH PET, HUBLI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD.

¶9

ASHPAK

¶10

KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI

¶11

Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2024.07.02 15:47:54 +0530

¶12

SRI. SHANMUKAPPA S/O. GURUSIDDAPPA SULLAD, AGE: 53 YEARS, R/O GANESH PET, HUBLI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD.

¶13

SMT. SHOBHA W/O. PRAKASH SULLAD, AGE: 47 YEARS, R/O GANESH PET, HUBLI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD.

¶14

KUMA PAVANA D/O. PRAKASH SULLAD, AGE: 28 YEARS, R/O GANESH PET, HUBLI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD.

¶15

SMT. DEEPA D/O. HUCHANAGOUDA PATIL,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8455 WP No. 102194 of 2017

¶18

AGE: 32 YEARS, R/O ADNUR, TALUK: NAVALGUND, DISTRICT: DHARWAD.

¶19

…PETITIONERS

¶20

(BY SRI. J.S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

SMT. GAYATRI W/O. RAMESH BAGUR, AGE: 48 YEARS, R/O GANESH PETE, HUBBALLI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD.

¶23

KU. ARCHANADEVI, W/O. MALLIKARJUN MALAGI, AGE: 31 YEARS, R/O GANESH PETE, HUBBALLI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD.

¶24

KUM. SHILPA D/O. PRAKASHH SULLAD, AGE: 28 YEARS, R/O GANESH PET, HUBBALLI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD.

¶25

THE MANAGER, KALLAPPANNA AWADE ICHALAKARANJI, JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED, GANESH PET, AZAD ROAD, NEAR CBT, HUBBALLI.

¶26

SRI. JABBARKHAN HAYATHKAN HONNALLI, AGE: 72 YEARS, R/O NEAR WOODLAND HOTEL, HUBBALLI, TALUK: DHARWAD.

¶27

SRI. KRISHNA TUKARAM REVANKAR, AGE: 52 YEARS, R/O MARATA GALLI, BEHIND DECCAN TALKIES, HUBBALLI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD.

¶28

SMT. PITAJIBHAI W/O. VIMALCHAND TELSARA,

¶29

- 3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8455 WP No. 102194 of 2017

¶30

AGE: 62 YEARS, R/O SHIVAGANGA LAYOUT, BEHIND K.E.B OFFICE, MADHURA COLONY, KUSUGAL ROAD, HUBBALLI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD.

¶31

SRI. SHIVANAND HANUMANTAPPA JOGINA, AGE: 52 YEARS, R/O GABBUR GALLI, AKKIHONDA, HUBBALLI, DISTRICT: DAHRWAD.

¶32

SRI. KESHAVA SHANTAPPA VERNEKAR, AGE: 62 YEARS, R/O SHANTI KUNJ, NO.4659B, PRAGATI COLONY, SHIRUR PARK, VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD.

¶33

SRI. UGAMCHAND DEEPACHAND JAIN, AGE: 52 YEARS, R/O SUVIDA COLONY, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD.

¶34

…RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SRI. MAHESH WODEYAR & SRI. NAVEEN CHATRAD, ADVOCATES FOR R1 & R2; SRI. V.G. BHAT & SRI. A.A. KAMANGAR, ADVOCATES FOR R5; SRI. P.G. CHIKKANARAGUND, ADV. FOR R6; R3, R4, R7, R8, R9 & R10 ARE SERVED)

¶36

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED:21.02.2017, PASSED ON I.A.NO.XXVII, IN O.S.NO.259/2013, PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUBBALLI, THE COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A.

¶37

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

¶38

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8455 WP No. 102194 of 2017

¶39

ORDER

¶40

This petition is filed by the defendants challenging

¶41

the order passed by the learned Judge on I.A. No. 27 under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The application sought to recall D.W.2 for the purpose of marking a Will as evidence. The learned Judge rejected this application, citing the judgment in the case of V.M. Neelakantiah and another vs. State of Karnataka by Chief Secretary and others , reported in ILR 2006 Kar. 4213 .

¶42

In rejecting the application, the learned Judge held that a Will cannot be used as evidence until one attesting witness is called to prove its execution. This decision was based on the requirement that the execution of a Will must be substantiated by the testimony of an attesting witness.

¶43

Upon reviewing the order under challenge, this Court finds that it adheres strictly to the principles established in the aforementioned judgment. The judgment referenced Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, which stipulates that if a document's validity is contested, it cannot be used as evidence unless one attesting witness is called to prove its execution.

¶44

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8455 WP No. 102194 of 2017

¶45

In light of this legal framework, this Court concurs with the learned Judge's view that a Will can only be introduced into evidence through the testimony of an attesting witness. Consequently, the petitioners' request under Section 151 of the CPC to mark the Will through the beneficiary cannot be accepted, given the legal precedent set by the cited judgment.

¶46

While I am not inclined to interfere with the challenged order, the petitioners are granted the liberty to secure either the legal heirs or one of the attesting witnesses to identify the signature of an attesting witness. This would enable them to produce the Will as evidence in accordance with the law.

¶47

With these observations, the writ petition stands

dismissed.

Sd/JUDGE

SVH

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44

Chandrashekar Gurusiddappa Sullad, v. Smt.Gayatri W/O Ramesh Bagur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrashekar Gurusiddappa Sullad, v. Smt.Gayatri W/O Ramesh Bagur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Bhagirati Vs Sri.Narayan Manjunath Hegde

B G Ramalingesh S/O Late B.G. Basanna, Vs Fakkiravva W/O Murigeppa Kodi

G.V.P.R. Engineers Ltd. Vs Hubli Electricity Supply Company Ltd.

Mr. Mallappa Shivabasu Avaradi Vs Mrs. Bhuma W/O Dadusab Shaikh

Shri. Moulla S/O. Asadsab Shaikh Vs Smt. Jannatbi W/O Makabool Khan Pathan

Prakash S/O Gangappajotennavar Vs Yallappa S/O Siddappa Udinavar