Partly allowed

Ravi G.K. v. Smt.Parameshwari Amma

Karnataka HC18 Mar 2026WP/13181/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Partition suit plaintiffs sought summons to bank officials to produce account and fixed deposit particulars of their deceased father. The High Court partly allowed the writ petition: rejection was affirmed regarding other banks and defendants 5-7, but Vijaya Bank, Ujire branch, having admitted the accounts existed, was directed to produce records and give evidence.

What did the court decide?

Bank Manager, Vijaya Bank (Ujire branch) directed to produce bank and fixed deposit particulars of late M. Harikrishna Bhat and render evidence; rest of impugned order affirmed.

Ravi G.K. Vs Smt.Parameshwari Amma — Partition | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:15879 WP No. 13181 of 2020

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 13181 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

RAVI G.K. S/O LATE HARIKRISHNA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

¶10

RAKSHA BHAT

¶11

D/O RAVI G K

¶12

AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

¶13

REKHA BHAT D/O RAVI G K AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,

¶14

ALL ARE R/AT HARSHA,

¶15

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

ANANTHAKRISHNA NAGARA,

¶17

KUTHPADY, UDYAVARA, UDUPI - 574 118

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI. GOVINDARAJ K., ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

SMT.PARAMESHWARI AMMA AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, W/O LATE HARIKRISHNA BHAT, GOKULA HOUSE, KANYADY II, P O DHARMASTHALA,

¶22

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:15879 WP No. 13181 of 2020

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

BELTHANGADY TALUK

¶25

D.K. DISTRICT - 574 214.

¶26

VIJAYA BHAT

¶27

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, D/O LATE HARIKRISHNA BHAT, MAGDALENA C 801, CASTA RIO PALAVA NEAR NILJE STATION, DOMBIVILI EAST, THANE DISTRICT, MAHARASTRA - 421 204

¶28

VIKRAMA HOSAMANE AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O VIJAYA BHAT, MAGDALENA C 801, CASTA RIO, PALAVA, NEAR NILJE STATION, DOMBIVILI EAST, THANE DISTRICT, MAHARASTRA - 421 204

¶29

DEEPAK HOSAMANE AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O VIJAYA BHAT, MAGDALENA C 801, CASTA RIO PALAVA, NEAR NILJE STATION, DOMBIVILI EAST, THANE DISTRICT, MAHARASTRA - 421 204

¶30

UDAYA KUMAR M G AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O LATE HARIKRISHNA BHAT, GOKULA HOUSE, KANYADY II, P O DHARMASTHALA BELTHANGADY TALUK, D K DISTRICT - 574 214.

¶31

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:15879 WP No. 13181 of 2020

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

AKSHAYA KRISHNA

¶34

AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, S/O UDAYAKUMAR M G, GOKULA HOUSE, KANYADY II, P O DHARMASTHALA, BELTHANGADY TALUK, D K DISTRICT - 574 214.

¶35

SMT SHREEVANI

¶36

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, W/O UDAYAKUMAR M G, GOKULA HOUSE, KANYADY II, P O DHARMASTHALA, BELTHANGADY TALUK, D K DISTRICT - 574 214.

¶37

…RESPONDENTS

¶38

(BY SRI. VIVEK B.N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ABHINAV R., ADVOCATE FOR R1, R5, R6 AND R7 SRI. MAHESH M., ADVOCATE FOR R2 R3 AND R4 ARE SERVED)

¶39

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER ON I.A.NO. XVII DTD. 06.07.2020 PASSED BY THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BELTHANGADY, IN O.S.NO.16/2014 AS PER ANNX-P AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE I.A. AS PRAYED FOR AND ETC.

¶40

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

¶41

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶42

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:15879 WP No. 13181 of 2020

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

ORAL ORDER

¶45

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 06.07.2020 passed on I.A.No.XVII in O.S.No.16/2014 by the Senior Civil Judge, Belthangady, Dakshina Kannada (for short, 'Trial Court').

¶46

Sri. K.Govindaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs, submits that the petitioners have filed a suit for partition and separate possession of the property. In the said suit after commencement of trial, he filed an application to summon the officials of the bank and to produce documents mentioned in the application. It is submitted that the father of the plaintiffs maintained bank accounts with the banks referred to in the application. Those bank accounts are the savings bank accounts as well as the term deposits. It is further submitted that the petitioners issued legal notice to the respective banks calling upon them to furnish the particulars, however they declined to do so. Hence, the application was filed and the said application came to be rejected by the Trial Court under the impugned order mainly on the ground that the plaintiffs have not approached the bank for securing the particulars. It is also submitted that the plaint averments

¶47

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:15879 WP No. 13181 of 2020

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

indicate that the plaintiffs were residing in Udupi for educational purpose and after the death of their father, Sri M. Harikrishna Bhat, defendant No.5 and other defendants withdrew the money from his accounts and on maturity, realized the term deposit. These aspects are required to be adjudicated by the bank. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by allowing the application.

¶50

Per contra, Sri. Vivek B.N., learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants, supports the impugned order of the trial Court and submits that the petitioners have not stated the particulars of the bank accounts either in the plaint or in the schedule. It is submitted that a vague averment is made in the plaint with regard to the bank accounts of late Sri. M. Harikrishna Bhat. Based on such pleading, the application cannot be filed. It is further submitted that the application is also bereft of details of the bank particulars of late M. Harikrishna Bhat and also the defendants Nos.5, 6 and 7. It is also submitted that why the bank particulars of defendant Nos.5, 6 and 7 are sought is not forthcoming either from the plaint or from the application. It is

¶51

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:15879 WP No. 13181 of 2020

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

contended that the petitioners are required to exhaust the remedy available under Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "CPC") by approaching the bank, and then could have secured the certified copies. Without exhausting the said remedy, he has straightway filed an application before the Trial Court, after the conclusion of the trial, which is impermissible. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Sri.T.Sripadareny Vs. Dr. Thimmaiah since dead by his LRs. in W.P.No.7765/2020 disposed of on 19.12.2025 . Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition.

¶54

I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondents and meticulously perused the material on record.

¶55

The records indicate that the petitioners have filed O.S.No.16/2014 against the respondents herein for partition and separate possession with regard to the Schedule 'A', 'C' and 'D' properties. Schedule 'A' to 'C' properties are immovable properties and schedule 'D' property is listed as the movable properties. Schedule 'D' properties indicate various items and

¶56

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:15879 WP No. 13181 of 2020

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

also refer to bank accounts. However, bank particulars are not forthcoming.

¶59

In order to substantiate the contention and the

¶60

relief sought, the petitioners have made averments in paragraph '18' of the plaint that after the illness of late M.Harikrishna Bhat, the matured FD deposits in the name of late M. Harikrishna Bhat have been converted into his wife or his sons' names. With these pleadings and assertions, an application under Order XVI, Rules 1 and 2 of CPC came to be filed, which is numbered as I.A.No.17.

¶61

A perusal of the memorandum of facts filed along

¶62

with the accompanying application indicates that the plaintiffs intend to secure the bank particulars of late Sri M. Harikrishna Bhat till 2010 and listed out the particulars of the bank and its branches. The memorandum of facts also indicates that similar prayer is made with regard to defendant Nos.5 and 7. The said application is opposed by the respondents by filing objections. The trial Court under the impugned order rejected the same. It is to be noticed that the petitioners sent a communication to one of the banks requesting them to furnish bank particulars of

¶63

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:15879 WP No. 13181 of 2020

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

late M. Harikrishna Bhat. The notice sent by the petitioners can be found at Annexures H, J, and K.

¶66

To the aforesaid notices, Vijaya Bank, Ujire Branch, sent a reply, found at Annexure-L dated 24.01.2013 which is marked as Ex.P55 in the trial. A perusal of the reply clearly shows that late Sri M. Harikrishna Bhat was maintaining the savings bank account and fixed deposit in the same bank. The reply further indicates that petitioner No. 1 has never approached the bank seeking particulars. It is stated that the bank account was closed from 26.09.2009 and the nominee only has a right to claim the amount.

¶67

It is not in dispute that the petitioners are seeking for partition of the suit schedule properties referred to in the plaint. However, the plaint averments are unclear and vague with regard to the bank particulars of late M. Harikrishna Bhat and only refer to the bank accounts .without any details. Though it may not be in dispute that the documents sought may be relevant to decide the dispute between the parties. What is required to be seen is whether the documents sought in the application are required to be produced and witnesses

¶68

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:15879 WP No. 13181 of 2020

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

are required to be summoned. In my considered view, in the absence of detailed particulars, there cannot be a vague assertion in the plaint or the application seeking the production of documents. The contention of the respondents is that the respondents ought to have approached the bank, which has no merit, as the plaintiffs' counsel has sent notices to the bank asking them to produce the documents, to which there has been no reply from the bank to the said notice.

¶71

Considering the aforesaid facts and in the absence of any material particulars, I am of the considered view that the application for summoning the documents sought cannot be entertained insofar as the other defendants are concerned. However, the Vijaya Bank, Ujire branch, has specifically admitted in its reply at Ex.P55 that late Sri. M.Hariskrishna Bhat was maintaining the savings bank accounts and the fixed deposits account. In view of the specific admission made by the said bank, the application is required to be allowed in part by summoning the officials/manager of the Vijaya Bank, Ujire branch, to produce the bank particulars and fixed deposit particulars of late Sri. M. Harikrishna Bhat.

¶72

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:15879 WP No. 13181 of 2020

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following:

¶75

ORDER

¶76

i. Writ petition is partly-allowed .

¶77

ii. The impugned order insofar as summoning of the Bank Managers of the other banks and bank particulars of defendant Nos.5 to 7 is concerned, the same is affirmed and the rejection of the prayer to summon the Bank Manager of the Vijaya Bank is set aside. The application to the aforesaid extent is allowed.

¶78

iii. The Bank Manager, Vijaya Bank, is directed to produce the bank particulars of late Sri. M.Harikrisha Bhat as sought in the application and render his evidence as sought in the application.

¶79

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶80

GJM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Ravi G.K. v. Smt.Parameshwari Amma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi G.K. v. Smt.Parameshwari Amma

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

Anand Vs Chandan

Sri Ramappa Vs Divisional Controller Ksrtc

Smt Dhanavanthi Vs Mr Joseph Antony Moras

Sri Nagappa N G Vs Secretary

Smt. Chitthamma Vs Thammanna

Sri. Syed Aslam Vs Sri. M S Dinesh