Disposed¶47

Shri Girimallayya S/O Allayya Mathapati v. Smt Kalavati W/O Shivalingayya Mathad

Karnataka HC24 Oct 2025WP/104882/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Production of Will in execution proceedings; jurisdiction of executing Court to adjudicate validity of Will under Section 47 CPC; recall application I.A.No.4 rejected and confirmed in W.P.No.101354/2025; fair trial directions to permit pleadings on alleged Will; Trial Court to frame issues and record evidence; E.P.No.6/2021; Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Banahatti; High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad; Anant Ramanath Hegde, J.; writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of without interfering with the impugned order; petitioners permitted to place pleadings relating to the alleged Will before the executing Court, and the Trial Court directed to frame issues on the alleged execution of the Will and pass orders of recording evidence. ¶47

Shri Girimallayya S/O Allayya Mathapati Vs Smt… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to place his pleadings relating to the alleged Will (said to have been executed by petitioner No.1 in favour of petitioner No.2) before the executing Court. +1 more

¶39

Court's answer

Since the executing Court has held that it has jurisdiction to decide on the validity of the alleged Will, and this Court confirmed that finding in W.P.No.101354/2025, to ensure fair trial the petitioner is permitted to place his pleadings relating to the alleged Will before the executing Court.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner claiming under petitioner No.2 is also permitted to place her pleading relating to the alleged execution of the Will; thereafter the Trial Court shall frame issues relating to the alleged execution of the Will and pass orders of recording the evidence.

¶41

Key takeaways

The impugned order does not require interference; the adjudication on the alleged Will shall take place keeping in mind the observations made by this Court in this order.ratio¶42
The adjudication on the alleged Will shall take place in accordance with the observations made in this order.ratio¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-CPC) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India — challenge to order on I.A.No.III dated 22/08/2024 in E.P.No.6/2021 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Banahatti, whereby production of an alleged Will dated 22.12.2016 was allowed in execution proceedings instituted pursuant to a final decree. Earlier, I.A.No.4 seeking recall of the order on I.A.No.3 had been rejected, and W.P.No.101354/2025 against that rejection was dismissed by this Court, confirming that the claim under the Will can be adjudicated in view of Section 47 of the CPC. Holding that, to ensure fair trial, and since the executing Court's jurisdiction to decide the validity of the Will stands confirmed, the petitioners are permitted to place their pleadings relating to the alleged Will before the executing Court; the Trial Court is to frame issues relating to the alleged execution of the Will and pass orders of recording the evidence. Impugned order not interfered with; writ petition disposed of (Anant Ramanath Hegde, J.).

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14220 WP No. 104882 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 104882 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SHRI. GIRIMALLAYYA S/O. ALLAYYA MATHAPATI, AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SASALATTI, TQ: RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶7

[SHRI. CHIKKAYYA S/O. GIRIMALLAYYA MATHAPATI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’s.]

¶8

SMT. LALITA W/O. CHIKKAYYA 2. HIREMATH @ MATHAPATI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. SASALATTI, TQ: RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶9

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶10

SMT. MALLAMMA

¶11

W/O. IRAYYA MARADIMATH, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. SASALATTI, TQ: RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶12

SMT. RAJSHREE W/O. ADIVESH TELAGINMATH, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. SASALATTI, TQ: RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶13

¶14

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14220 WP No. 104882 of 2025

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

SMT. SAVITA W/O. JAGADISH HIREMATH, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. SASALATTI, TQ: RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶17

SHRI. ALLAYYA S/O. GIRIMALLAYYA MATHAPATI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. SASALATTI, TQ: RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶18

SHRI. NAGAYYA S/O. GIRIMALLAYYA MATHAPATI, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SASALATTI, TQ: RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶19

…PETITIONERS

¶20

(BY SRI. M.C.HUKKERI, ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

SMT. KALAVATI W/O. SHIVALINGAYYA MATHAD, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. SHIVANUR, TQ: ATHANI, NOW AT DEVANAGERI.

¶23

…RESPONDENT

¶24

(BY SMT. PALLAVI S.PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY SUCH OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION TO SETASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON I.A.NO.III DATED 22/08/2024 IN E.P.NO.6/2021 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BANAHATTI. AT BANAHATTI, VIDE ANNEXURE -K AND DISMISS THE I.A.NO.III IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14220 WP No. 104882 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)

¶31

This petition is filed assailing the order on I.A.No.3 in E.P.No.6/2021 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Banahatti. Said execution petition is filed pursuant to final decree.

¶32

In the execution petition, petitioner No.1 died, who is the mother of petitioner No.2. Petitioner No.2 claims that petitioner No.1 her mother executed a Will on 22.12.2016 in her favour.

¶33

The application is filed at I.A.No.3 for production of

¶34

said Will. The application was allowed.

¶35

Later the present petitioner filed I.A.No.4 to recall the order on I.A.No.3 allowing the production of the Will. The application was rejected. Said order is called in question in W.P.No.101354/2025. This Court has dismissed the writ petition confirming the order on I.A.No.4. In I.A.No.4, the Court has concluded that the claim under the Will can be adjudicated in view of Section 47 of the CPC.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14220 WP No. 104882 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he should be permitted to place his pleadings relating to the alleged Will said to have been executed by petitioner No.1 in favour of petitioner No.2.

¶40

Since executing Court has held that it has jurisdiction to decide on the validity of the Will said to have been executed by petitioner No.2 and since this Court has confirmed the said finding in W.P.No.101354/2025, to ensure fair trial, that the petitioner should be permitted to place his pleadings relating to the alleged Will said to have been executed by petitioner No.2 before the executing Court.

¶41

To ensure the fair trial, petitioner No.1 who is claiming under petitioner No.2 is also permitted to place her pleading relating to the alleged execution of the Will. Thereafter, the Trial Court shall frame issues relating to the alleged execution of the Will and pass orders of recording the evidence.

¶42