Dismissed

M Rangamma v. R Chandra Reddy

Karnataka HC13 Mar 2024WP/2032/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Defendants challenged rejection of their application to refer an agreement's signatures to a handwriting expert in a specific performance suit. The High Court held the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the application since no proper denial of execution existed, dismissed the petition, but imposed costs on the plaintiff for a false objection.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; plaintiff directed to pay Rs.10,000 as costs to Government Hospital, Sira within four weeks.

M Rangamma Vs R Chandra Reddy — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:10361 WP No. 2032 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 2032 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M. RANGAMMA W/O LATE THIMMANNA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶8

A.T. SHIVAKUMAR W/O LATE THIMMANNA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶9

LIKHITHA S/O A.T. SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS,

¶10

LAKSHMI D/O A.T. SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS,

¶11

Digitally signed by BS RAVIKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

POOJA D/O A.T. SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS

¶13

SRINIVASA S/O A.T. SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS,

¶14

PETITIONER NO.3 TO 6 ARE MINORS AND REPRESENTED BY THEIR FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN A.T. SHIVAKUMAR (PETITIONER NO.2)

¶15

SHANTHAMMA W/O A.T. SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:10361 WP No. 2032 of 2020

¶17

SANNEGOWDA S/O LATE THIMMANNA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶18

BHUWAN GOWDA S/O SANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS,

¶19

PETITIONER NO.9 IS MINOR AND REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SANNEGOWDA (PETITIONER NO.8)

¶20

SHASHIKALA W/O SANNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶21

PETITIONER NO.1 TO 10 ARE RESIDING AT AJJAYYANAPALYA MANANGI MAJARE KASABA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK TUMKURU DISTRICT-572 137

¶22

…PETITIONERS

¶23

(BY SRI. AJIT KALYAN, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER NOS.1, 2, 8 AND 10)

¶24

AND:

¶25

R. CHANDRA REDDY S/O RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT KAVAL HOSAHALLI BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203

¶26

S.R. HARIPRASAD S/O LATE RAJAGOPAL AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT MAIN ROAD, SIRA TOWN TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 137

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI. R.V.SHIVANANDA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:10361 WP No. 2032 of 2020

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS ON THE FILE OF HONBLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SIRA IN O.S.NO.126/2015 AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.21.11.2019 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SIRA IN O.S.NO.126/2015 VIDE ANEXURE-A REJECTING THE APPOINTMENT OF HANDWRITTING EXPERT AND ETC.

¶31

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

¶32

ORDER

¶33

The defendant Nos.1 to 10 in O.S.No.126/2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sira (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') have filed this petition challenging an order dated 21.11.2019 passed therein, by which, an application (I.A.No.11) filed by defendant No.8 under Order XXVI Rule 10A of CPC was rejected.

¶34

The suit in O.S.No.126/2015 was filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 16.11.2012. The defendant No.2 alone filed the written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and also claimed that he did not execute the agreement dated 16.11.2012. Based on these contentions, the suit was set down for trial. The plaintiff was

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:10361 WP No. 2032 of 2020

¶37

examined as PW.1 and defendant No.8 entered into the witness box and was examined as DW.1.

¶38

After the trial in the suit was concluded, defendant No.8 filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 10A of CPC to refer the agreement dated 12.12.2014 for comparison of the admitted signatures of the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 8 in the Vakalath and compare it with the disputed signatures at Ex.P16(a), 16(b), 16(c), 17(a), 17(b), 18(a), 18(b), 19(a), 19(b), 20(a) and 20(b). This application was opposed by the plaintiff on the ground that the defendant No.8 had filed the application to protract the proceedings.

¶39

Based on these contentions, the Trial Court rejected the application in terms of the impugned order on the ground that the disputed signatures of defendant Nos.1, 2 and 8 on Ex.P16 were sought to be compared with the signatures of the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 8 on the Vakalath and Ex.D7. It held that the plaintiff was a stranger to the Vakalathnama executed by the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 8 as well as the sale deed at Ex.D7. The Trial Court further held that the said documents were not confronted to PW.1 and therefore, it cannot be

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:10361 WP No. 2032 of 2020

¶41

construed that the signatures of the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 8 found in the Vakalath and Ex.D7 were admitted by the plaintiff. It therefore, held that the signatures found on Ex.P16 cannot be compared with the signatures of defendant Nos.1, 2 and 8 on Vakalath and Ex.D7. During the course of the order, it held,

¶42

"In a suit for specific performance where the execution of agreement is denied, the documents to be sent for expert opinion is one disputed by the defendant and the another admitted by both the parties."

¶43

The Trial Court thus rejected the application in terms of the impugned order.

¶44

The defendant Nos.1 to 10 being aggrieved by the

¶45

aforesaid order, have filed this petition.

¶46

The learned counsel for the defendant Nos.1, 2, 8 and 10 submitted that the plaintiff objected to the application filed by defendant No.8 that the defendant No.8, who was examined as DW.1 had admitted the execution of Ex.P16. He contends that a perusal of the entire evidence of DW.1 does not disclose that he had admitted the execution of Ex.P16. He further contends that the Trial Court committed an error in

¶47

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:10361 WP No. 2032 of 2020

¶48

holding that the signatures of defendant Nos.1, 2 and 8 on Ex.P16 were admitted. He further contends that since the defendants have disputed the lawful execution of the agreement at Ex.P16 and since there was nothing to establish that the defendants had executed Ex.P16, the only way that the said fact could be ascertained was through a scientific examination. He therefore, contends that the Trial Court committed an error in rejecting the application.

¶49

Per contra, the learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that DW.1 had admitted that Ex.P16 was executed by them. He further contended that there were various circumstances, which indicated that the defendants had tacitly admitted the lawful execution of the agreement, in as much as they failed to reply to the notice issued by the plaintiff calling upon them to complete the sale transaction. They did not contest the suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance. He therefore, contends that there was no need to get the signatures on the document at Ex.P16 compared. Thus, he contends that the Trial Court was right in rejecting the application.

¶50

¶51

NC: 2024:KHC:10361 WP No. 2032 of 2020

¶52

The learned counsel for the defendant Nos.1, 2, 8 and 10 submitted that the written statement was filed only by the defendant No.2. The other defendants did not even adopt the written statement filed by the defendant No.2. Though defendant No.2 denied the execution of the agreement of sale at Ex.P16 in his written statement, he did not enter the witness box. However, the defendant No.8 who did not file his written statement, entered the witness box and was examined as DW.1 and he claimed that he did not execute the agreement at Ex.P16. He also contended that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 did not sign the agreement of sale at Ex.P16. Therefore, the evidence of DW.1 did not assist him in any manner as there was no pleading to establish that he had not executed the agreement of sale at Ex.P16. None of the other defendants namely defendant Nos.1 and 2 and others had entered the witness box and had denied the claim of the plaintiff that a sale agreement at Ex.P16 was executed in his favour. Therefore, in the absence of any denial of the signatures on Ex.P16 by the defendant Nos.1 and 2, the defendant No.8 cannot be permitted to hold brief for the defendant Nos.1 and 2 to contend that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 had not executed the

¶53

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:10361 WP No. 2032 of 2020

¶54

sale agreement at Ex.P16. In that view of the matter, the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the application filed by defendant No.8. The Trial Court was always entitled to compare the signatures found at Ex.P16 and compare them with the signatures of the defendants found at Ex.D7 as well as Vakalath.

¶55

In that view of the matter, this petition lacks merit and is dismissed .

¶56

Before parting, it is relevant to note that the plaintiff had filed a false objection to the application filed by the defendant No.8, wherein he contended that DW.1 had admitted the lawful execution of Ex.P16 and claimed that such admissions were made at several places in the crossexamination of DW.1. However, a perusal of the crossexamination of DW.1 does not reveal any such admission. The plaintiff and his counsel were bound to act with some sense of responsibility while dealing with the proceedings in the Court. In that view of the matter, though this petition is dismissed, the plaintiff also is liable to be hauled up for filing false objection and misleading the Court. Thus, the plaintiff is liable

¶57

¶58

NC: 2024:KHC:10361 WP No. 2032 of 2020

¶59

to pay the cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) payable to the Government Hospital, Sira, within four weeks from today.

¶60

For compliance, list this petition after four weeks.

¶61

Sd/JUDGE

¶62

PMR

¶63

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

M Rangamma v. R Chandra Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Rangamma v. R Chandra Reddy

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

Sri.C.S. Srinivas Vs Smt. Bhagyalakshmi

Mrs Sridevi Vs Smt Kousalya Palanivel

Smt Ameena Bi Vs Union of India

Smt K Gowri Vs Sri K Satynarayana Setty

Smt Mary Jayashree Vs Venkatalakshmi

Mrs Shalini M Shetty Vs Sri B Jaya Shetty