Sri M Poojappa Vs Late Smt. Muniyallamma

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:48052 WP No. 23933 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 23933 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI M POOJAPPA S/O LATE MOTELAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/ATNO.42, 4TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN, HOSAHALLI HARIJANA COLONY, VIJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU-560040.

¶9

SRI. H MUNIKRISHNAIAH S/O LATE HUCHAPPA, AGED 62 YEARS, R/AT NO.42, 4TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN, VIJAYANAGARA, HOSAHALLI HARIJANA COLONAY, BENGALURU-560040.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. VINAY SWAMY C.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH

¶13

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

LATE MUNIYALLAMMA W/O LATE MUNIYALLAPPA REPRESENTED BY LR'S AS RESPONDENTS NO. 1 TO 4

¶16

SRI. GOVINDARAJU S/O LATE MUNIYALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT 4TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN, HOSAHALLI HARIJANA COLONY,

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:48052 WP No. 23933 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

VIJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU-560040.

¶21

SMT. DEVI @ DEVAMMA D/O LATE MUNIYALAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. R/AT 4TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN, HOSAHALLI HARIJANA COLONY, VIJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU-560040.

¶22

SMT. GANGAMMA D/O LATE MUNIYALAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. R/AT 4TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN, HOSAHALLI HARIJANA COLONY, VIJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU-560040.

¶23

SRI. KRISHNA MURTHY S/O LATE MUNIYALAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. R/AT 4TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN, HOSAHALLI HARIJANA COLONY, VIJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU-560040.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR SUCH OTHER WRIT ORDER DIRECTING THE HONBLE XXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE (CCH07) IN O.S NO.8688/1998 TO ALLOW THE PETITIONERS TO LEAD SECONDARY EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF SALE DEED DATED 30.08.1978 EXECUTED BY LAKKANNA S/O GANGAIAH IN FAVOUR OF KRISHNARAJU AND ANOTHER SALE DEED DATED 30.08.1978 EXECUTED BY LAKKANNA S/O GANGAIAH IN FAVOUR OF MUNIYALLAPPA S/O MOTAYALLAPPA AS PER ORDER DATED 18.04.2025 I.E ANNEXURE D., AND ETC.

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:48052 WP No. 23933 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶33

The prayer sought in this petition is as under:

¶34

A. Issue a writ of Mandamus or such other Writ order directing the Hon'ble XXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH07) in O.S.No.8688/1998 to allow the petitioners to lead Secondary Evidence in respect of sale deed dated 30.08.1978 executed by Lakkanna S/o Gangaiah in favour of Krishnaraju and another Sale deed dated 30.08.1978 executed by Lakkanna S/o Gangaiah in favour of Muniyallappa S/o Motayallappa as per order dated 18.04.2025 i.e. ANNEXURE - D.

¶35

B. Pass such other Writ/s or Order/s which are deemed to be fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of Justice and Equity.

¶36

Petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in a suit for partition filed in OS.No.8688/1998.

¶37

There is no need or necessity to issue notice to

¶38

the respondents/defendants, as the prayer sought is only a direction to the trial Court to lead secondary evidence in view of the judgment rendered in the RFA proceedings in

¶39

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:48052 WP No. 23933 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

RFA.No.2049/2006 with regard to the sale deeds being

¶42

produced.

¶43

The short question that arises for consideration

¶44

in this case is, aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree passed in the original suit on the earlier occasion, the petitioners/plaintiffs had approached this Court in RFA No.2049/2006. In the said RFA proceedings, petitioners as well as respondents filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 of CPC with sale deeds dated 30.08.1978 and the same was allowed by this Court, as the sale deeds would conclusively establish the lis between the parties.

¶45

While allowing the first appeal in

¶46

RFA.No.2049/2006, this Court passed an order setting aside the judgment and decree, remitting the matter back to the trial Court for fresh disposal, and clause 4 of the operative portion of the order reads as under:

¶47

"It is made clear that the parties are at liberty to produce the original sale deed dated

¶48

5 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:48052 WP No. 23933 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

30.08.1978 before the trial Court and proceed with the case in accordance with law."

¶52

Further orders were passed, which are self-

¶53

explanatory. The parties have gone before the trial Court pursuant to the appeal being allowed, and the plaintiffs intended to mark these documents which were already produced before the trial Court. The trial Court passed an order that is impugned herein holding that "this Court in the RFA proceedings directed the parties to produce original sale deeds dated 30.08.1978; now the petitioners/plaintiffs want to produce certified copy of the same. Certified copies of the sale deeds cannot be allowed to be produced and marked because of the said direction issued by this Court."

¶54

It is also further stated that the

¶55

respondents/defendants in the suit proceedings have also stated that they do not possess the original sale deed and neither is it in their custody. Hence, the petitioners/plaintiffs before this Court are seeking a

¶56

6 -

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:48052 WP No. 23933 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

direction to the learned trial Judge, to permit them to

¶60

produce the certified copy, which does not bar them in law and also by the virtue of the order passed in the RFA proceedings.

¶61

It is relevant to mention that in the RFA proceedings, the appellants as well as the respondents, i.e., the plaintiffs and the defendants filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 r/w Section 151 of CPC, with sale deeds dated 30.08.1978. This Court directed the parties to

¶62

plead additional evidence and the trial Court to receive the sale deed, which is already produced before the trial Court, accept it and proceed further with regard to evidence and conclude the proceedings. In the operative portion of the order, this Court has passed an order permitting the plaintiffs and the defendants to produce the sale deeds before the trial Court and the application that was filed before this Court in the RFA proceedings was in fact allowed. Therefore, it is only to be now marked before the trial Court as this Court in appeal proceedings

¶63

7 -

¶64

NC: 2025:KHC:48052 WP No. 23933 of 2025

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

considered it to be a crucial document to decide the rights of the parties.

¶67

At para No.15 of the said judgment, it is clearly stated that the application is allowed. The respondents/applicants and the respondents are to produce the sale deeds dated 30.08.1978. However, in the operative portion of the order clause 4, it is mentioned that the parties are at liberty to produce the original sale deed dated 30.08.1978 before the trial Court and proceed with the case in accordance with law. There is a doubt in the mind of the trial Court as to whether the trial Court can accept the certified copy or any other copy of the sale deed. What is ordered by this Court in the RFA proceedings is to produce the sale deeds dated 30.08.1978. In the operative portion of the order, it is

¶68

stated that the parties are at liberty to produce the original sale deed. Therefore, when a liberty is given to the

¶69

parties to produce the original sale deed, they are not precluded from producing the certified copy of the sale

¶70

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:48052 WP No. 23933 of 2025

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

deed or copy of it and proceeding further in that case in accordance with law. Therefore, nothing precludes the parties, both plaintiffs as well as defendants, from producing the certified copy or a copy of the sale deeds, and the trial Court shall allow the same and proceed further in accordance with law as contemplated in the Civil Procedure and the Evidence Act and the proceedings of the Court and proceed further in the matter.

¶73

Therefore, the order passed by the trial Court with regard to certified copy cannot be allowed to be produced and marked because of the direction is not sustainable and the same will have to be set aside, and a direction is required to be given to the learned trial judge who has accepted this document as it was already allowed in the RFA proceedings, to continue to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law. Accordingly, I pass the following order.

¶74