Allowed¶63

Smt Bharathi v. Smt Janakamma

Karnataka HC5 Jun 2026WP/16606/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (Lalitha Kanneganti, J., 05-06-2026, WP No. 16606 of 2026, GM-CPC) allows defendants' I.A. No. 10 in partition suit O.S. No. 3506/2015 to recall PW-1 for further cross-examination to prove the Will post-remand in RFA 1940/2025; trial Court dismissal set aside; timeline preserved (cross-examination 08.06.2026, evidence by 12.06.2026).

What did the court decide?

Order dated 29.04.2026 passed on I.A. No. 10 in O.S. No. 3506 of 2015 by the XV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru set aside and I.A. No. 10 allowed; matter remanded to the trial Court; defendants to cross-examine PW-1 on 08.06.2026 concluding the same day; defendants' further evidence to be completed by 12.06.2026 with no further adjournments, the trial Court to proceed expeditiously per the earlier High Court orders; all I.As. in the writ petition closed.

Smt Bharathi Vs Smt Janakamma — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶63

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court's dismissal of I.A. No. 10 — by which the defendants sought recall of PW-1 for further cross-examination to prove the alleged Will, the burden whereof lies on them and the plaintiffs being co-beneficiaries — should be set aside. +1 more

¶40

Court's answer

Since an additional issue on the validity of the alleged Will has been framed post-remand (no such issue existed when evidence was earlier adduced), cross-examination of PW-1 would cause no prejudice to the plaintiffs and would facilitate the defendants to prove the Will, the plaintiffs being themselves beneficiaries under it.

¶56

Ratio / Principle

The order passed by the trial Court dismissing I.A. No. 10 needs to be set aside; in doing so the Court remained conscious of the timeline fixed in its earlier order in RFA No. 1940/2025.

¶57

Key takeaways

The Court did not accept the submission that, because the burden of proving the Will lies on the defendants, recalling PW-1 for further cross-examination was unnecessary.ratio¶56

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by the defendants in O.S. No. 3506/2015 (partition suit decreed in favour of respondents 1 and 3), challenging the trial Court's order dated 29-04-2026 dismissing their I.A. No. 10 seeking recall of PW-1 for further cross-examination. Following remand by the High Court's judgment dated 17.11.2025 in RFA No. 1940/2025 confined to deciding the validity of the Will, an additional issue was framed; the Will (Exs.P.5 and P.14) names the plaintiffs among its beneficiaries, so the defendants, on whom the burden of proof lay, sought to cross-examine PW-1. The trial Court had refused, viewing the application as intended only to drag the proceedings against the High Court-fixed timeline before Summer Vacation 2026. Holding that the cross-examination would cause no prejudice to the plaintiffs and would enable proof of the Will, and remaining conscious of the earlier timeline, the High Court set aside the impugned order, allowed I.A. No. 10, remanded the matter, fixed cross-examination of PW-1 for 08.06.2026 (to conclude the same day) and completion of defence evidence by 12.06.2026 without adjournments, and closed all interlocutory applications.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:26709 WP No. 16606 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 16606 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. BHARATHI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, W/O. LATE RAMACHANDRA

¶11

SMT. BHAVYA

¶12

AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, D/O. LATE RAMACHANDRA,

¶13

SRI. JNANESH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, S/O. LATE RAMACHANDRA,

¶14

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF SRIRAMPURA,

¶15

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

JAKKUR POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560 064

¶17

(BY SRI. D. NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE)

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

AND:

¶20

SMT. JANAKAMMA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, D/O. LATE MUNISWAMAPPA, W/O. RAJANNA, R/A. SHIVAPURA, 17TH B CROSS,

¶21

NEAR NARASHIMA SWAMY TEMPLE, NELAGADARANAHALLI, PEENYA POST, BENGALURU-560 057

¶22

¶23

NC: 2026:KHC:26709 WP No. 16606 of 2026

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

SMT. RATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, D/O. LATE MUNISWAMAPPA, R/A. NEAR MUNESHWARASWAMY TEMPLE, JAKKUR POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI SRIRAMPURA, BENGALURU - 560 064

¶26

SM. CHUDAMANI BH MAJOR W/O S.K. SHIVALINGAIAH R/A NO.18, ANNAIAPPA LAYOUT, GEDDLAHALLI, RAJMAHALA VIAS 2^ND STAGE, B ENGALURU 560 094

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI.B.RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.K.S.NARENDRA BABU REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 & R2)

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 29-04-2026 PASSED ON I.A. NO. 10 IN O.S. NO. 3506/2015 BY THE HONBLE XV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU, IN O.S. NO. 3506/2015, AS PER ANNEXURE-A.

¶30

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

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

Aggrieved by the order passed on I.A. No. 10 in OS No. 3506 of 2015 dated 29.04.2026 by the XV Additional

¶34

City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru, (hereinafter

¶35

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:26709 WP No. 16606 of 2026

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

referred to as trial Court for short) the defendants are before this Court.

¶39

2. The respondents No.1 and 3 herein have filed a suit for partition and separate possession, that came to be decreed. Against that, R.F.A. No. 1940 of 2025 is filed before this Court and by judgment and decree dated 17.11.2025 this Court has remanded the matter for the limited purpose of deciding the validity of the Will and directed the trial Court to frame an issue in this regard. Thereafter, the plaintiffs have stated that they have no evidence to lead and the defendants have led the evidence and after the completion of evidence of the defendants they have filed the instant application for recalling PW-1 for further cross-examination.

¶40

3. It is the case of the defendants that since the plaintiffs are also beneficiary of the will produced as Exs.P.5 and P.14 and the burden of proving the will is on the defendants based on the issues framed by the trial Court, it is just and necessary to cross examine PW-1.

¶41

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:26709 WP No. 16606 of 2026

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

That was objected by the plaintiffs stating that the High Court has fixed the time frame to complete the exercise before the Summer Vacation 2026. This application is filed only to protract the proceedings and no reasons are stated in the application that is filed by the defendants seeking to recall and reopen. The trial Court by the order impugned had dismissed the I.A.No.10 on the ground that the application is filed only to drag the proceedings and no reasons are stated. Aggrieved there by, the defendants are before this Court.

¶44

4. Learned counsel appearing for the defendants submits that there is no intention on the part of the defendants to protract the proceedings. In fact, as per the timeline fixed by the High Court they have been prosecuting the matter. It is submitted that in the interest of justice and to prove the will, as the plaintiffs are also beneficiaries, it is very much necessary to cross-examine the plaintiff/PW-1 and the trial Court without appreciating the said fact, only by observing that the timeline is fixed

¶45

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:26709 WP No. 16606 of 2026

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

by the Court and the application is filed to protract the proceedings has dismissed the application and the same needs to be set aside.

¶49

5. Learned counsel appearing for the

¶50

respondents/plaintiffs submits that the Court has rightly dismissed the application as the same is filed only to protract the proceedings. It is submitted that the burden lies on the defendants to prove the will and in fact with regard to this in the earlier round of litigation, the plaintiff/PW-1 was cross-examined and there is nothing to cross-examine the plaintiff/PW-1 at this juncture and the Court has rightly considered the same and dismissed the application.

¶51

6. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, perused the material on record.

¶52

7. The submission of the learned counsel for the

¶53

petitioners/defendants is that earlier the plaintiff/PW-1 was examined at length. Now at this point of time, as the

¶54

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:26709 WP No. 16606 of 2026

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

burden lies on the defendants to prove, recalling the PW1 for further cross-examination is not necessary. This Court is not able to appreciate the said submission. There was no issue with regard to the alleged will earlier when the evidence is adduced. Now, additional issue is framed and if the plaintiff/PW-1 is cross-examined there is no prejudice to the plaintiff and it would facilitate the defendants to prove the will as the plaintiffs are also a beneficiaries of the said will.

¶57

8. In that view of the matter. This Court is of the view that the order that is passed by the trial Court needs to be set aside. At the same time, this Court is conscious of the earlier order passed in the RFA No.1940/2025, where timeline is fixed and considering all these, this Court is passing the following:

¶58

ORDER

¶59

(i) The order passed on I.A. No. 10 in O.S. No. 3506 of 2015 dated 29.04.2026 by the XV Additional

¶60

¶61

NC: 2026:KHC:26709 WP No. 16606 of 2026

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru, is set aside and consequently, I.A.No.10 is allowed.

¶64

(ii) The matter is remanded back to the trial Court.

¶65

(iii) Defendants shall cross-examine PW1 on Monday i.e., on 08.06.2026 and shall conclude it on the same day.

¶66

(iv) Defendants’ further evidence shall also be completed by 12.06.2026 and the trial Court shall not grant any further adjournments and shall proceed with the matter, expeditiously in the light of the earlier orders passed by the High Court.

¶67

(v) Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed .

¶68

(vi) All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed.

¶69

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶70

BVK

¶71

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Smt Bharathi v. Smt Janakamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Bharathi v. Smt Janakamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Devendrappa Vs Sri Nagaraju

M/S B S Enterprises Vs S Prakash

Smt Gowramma Vs B N Ramesh

Sri B N Subramani Vs Sri T S Sathyanarayana

Smt Malashree Jangannavara Vs Sri M Ullas

Smt. Jamarunissa Vs Syed Ammerjan