Dismissed¶¶66

Sri D S Kumar v. Smt Yeshodamma

Karnataka HC7 Jul 2026WP/30583/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Signature/handwriting comparison refused at arguments stage — absence of admitted-signature specimens fatal to Order 26 Rule 10/A r/w Section 45 Indian Evidence Act application for Court Commissioner (scientific investigation); Article 227 certiorari petition dismissed, no interference with Hosakote civil judge's order; partition suit O.S.3203/2022 (old 431/2011); Ex.D-1 sale deed dt. 27.05.1952; disputed signature of grandfather T. Dasappa; defendants disputed Ex.D-1; Sub-Registrar original-documents register argument rejected; expert opinion denied after closure of evidence; pending interlocutory applications closed.

What did the court decide?

An application for forensic comparison/expert opinion of a disputed signature cannot be allowed when there is no document of admitted signatures available and the matter is already posted for arguments.

Sri D S Kumar Vs Smt Yeshodamma — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶66

Issue for consideration

Whether the application (I.A.No.3) seeking appointment of a Court Commissioner for expert/scientific comparison of the suspected signature of T. Dasappa on Ex.D-1 (against the Xerox copies/list dated 26.06.2023) could be allowed when no document bearing admitted signatures had been produced, marked or admitted, and the suit evidence was complete with the matter posted for arguments.

¶¶58

Court's answer

¶¶58

Ratio / Principle

The Trial Court rightly observed that no admitted signatures of Dasappa were available, and even the document relied upon for the year 1952 was not admitted and marked by the court.

¶¶58

Key takeaways

The petitioner's contention that a comparable document might be available with the Sub-Registrar and that an opportunity should be given to compare signatures with the Registrar's records is not appreciated by this Court.ratio¶¶58
The application rested on a document not even marked as an exhibit before the court; this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court.ratio¶¶63

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-CPC) under Article 227 — Karnataka HC (Bengaluru), Lalitha Kanneganti, J. (07-07-2026) — dismissed. Challenged: order dt. 05.07.2025 of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Hosakote dismissing I.A.No.3/2023 in O.S.No.3203/2022 (old No.431/2011) — a partition/separate-possession suit also seeking declaration that sale deeds dt. 26.11.1994, 23.09.2006 and 19.07.1994 are not binding — the I.A. having been filed under Order 26 Rule 10/A r/w Sec.45 Indian Evidence Act for appointment of a Court Commissioner for scientific investigation/examination of admitted signatures. Plaintiffs suspected the signature of their grandfather T. Dasappa on Ex.D-1 (certified copy of 1952 sale deed) produced during DW-1's examination. Held: with evidence concluded and the matter posted for arguments, an application comparing Ex.D-1 against the defendant's Xerox copies (list dt. 26.06.2023) cannot be allowed where no admitted signatures of Dasappa exist and the relied-upon 1952 document is itself unadmitted and unmarked; the plea that a comparable original may lie with the Sub-Registrar is 'not appreciated'; the application rested on a document not even marked as an exhibit; no interference with the trial court's dismissal; pending I.As. in the writ petition closed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:34087 WP No. 30583 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 30583 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI D S KUMAR SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS SRI. S.K.SOMESHWARA, S/O LATE D.S. KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

¶11

MS. USHA.S.K. D/O LATE D.S. KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

¶12

BOTH ARE R/AT NO.E-930, 3^RD SOUTH ROAD, ITI 'B' AREA, DOORAVANINAGAR POST, BENGLAURU-560 016.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

(BY SRI. V.VISWANATH SETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

SMT.YESHODAMMA W/O LATE T.R.SHANKRAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

¶18

SRI.MANJUNATH S/O LATE T.R. SHANKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

¶19

BOTH ARE R/AT FIRST FLOOR, L.J. IYENGAR BAKERY, OPP. NANTHA RAMAIAH BUILDING,

¶20

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:34087 WP No. 30583 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

GARUDACHARAPALYA MAIN ROAD, MAHADEVAPURA POST, BENGALURU-560 048

¶23

SMT. RATHNAMMA, W/O LATE ANJINAPPA, MAJOR, R/AT RAMAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560 048

¶24

SRI.M.MUNIVENKATAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S

¶25

SRI.T.M.VENKATESH @ TATHANUR VENKATESH S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA MAJOR

¶26

SMT.PUTTAMMA D/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA MAJOR

¶27

RESPONDENT NO.4 TO 6 ARE R/AT MALLAMMA NILAYA 1^ST CROSS, MUNIYAPPA LAYOUT NEAR MM CHOULTARY NEAR POLICE STATION ROAD K R PURAM BENGALURU-560 036

¶28

SMT. A.VIMALA, W/O LATE R.NANJUNDESH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.72, MUNNKOLALA VILLAGE, MARATHAHALLI POST, BENGALURU-560 037

¶29

SRI. D.S. RAJENDRA, S/O LATE T. DASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT NO. 131/6, MES QUARTERS,

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:34087 WP No. 30583 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

COMMAND HOSPITAL AIRFORCE, OLD AIRPORT ROAD, BENGALURU

¶33

SRI. RAMAKRISHNAPPA, S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, C/O CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS, R/AT TATHANUR VILLAGE, MEDI MALLASANDRA POST, HOSKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU-560 067

¶34

SMT. D.S. PREMAVATHI, W/O THIMMARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT AMRUTHAHALLI VILLAGE, YELAHANAKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560 064

¶35

…RESPONDENTS

¶36

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HOSAKOTE DATED: 05.07.2025 ANNEXURE-E IN O.S.NO.3203/2022 (OLD NO. 431/2011) ON I.A.NO.3/2023 FILED UNDER ORDER 26 RULE 10/A R/W.SEC.45 OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT TO APPOINTMENT THE COURT COMMISSIONER FOR SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION AND TO GIVE REPORT BY EXAMINING THE ADMITTED SIGNATURES.

¶37

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

¶38

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:34087 WP No. 30583 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶42

ORAL ORDER

¶43

Aggrieved by the orders passed on I.A.No.3 in O.S.No.3203/2022(old No.431/2011) dated 05.07.2025, by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosakote, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶44

The petitioner/plaintiff has filed the application. The suit is for partition, separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties, and a declaration that the sale deeds dated 26.11.1994, 23.09.2006, and 19.07.1994 are not binding on their share. In the said suit, after the evidence was concluded and the matter was posted for arguments, the present I.A is filed seeking to appoint the Court Commissioner. It is the case of the plaintiff that at the time of the examination DW-1, produced several documents on her behalf. Among them were Ex.D-1, a certified copy of the sale deed dated 27.05.1952, and a copy of the original sale deed dated 27.05.1952. After verifying the said documents, they suspect the alleged signature of their grandfather, T.Dasappa. Hence, it is just and necessary to appoint a Court Commissioner for the

¶45

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:34087 WP No. 30583 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

complete adjudication of the matter and to decide it on merits. The trial court, by the impugned order, dismissed the application.

¶49

While dismissing the application, the trial court observed that, on perusal of the available records, the arguments canvassed by both parties, and the written arguments filed by the plaintiffs, the suit is filed by the plaintiff, seeking relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the suit-scheduled properties, to declare that the sale deeds dated 26.11.1994, 23.09.2006, and 19.07.1994 are not binding on them, and for a permanent injunction. On rival pleadings, the trial court framed proper issues, and both parties led their evidence by producing oral and documentary evidence. When the case was posted for arguments, an application was filed seeking permission to refer Ex.D-1, along with admitted signatures of one Dasappa found in the documents produced in the list, on 26.06.2023. The trial court observed that on perusal of the said documents, it was found that they were not obtained from the authorised authority, were not marked by the parties, and were not admitted by the court. Furthermore, the defendants have also disputed the signature Ex.D.1. The

¶50

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:34087 WP No. 30583 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

sale deed was produced in certified copy and they have produced the xerox copy of the sale deed dated 25.07.1952 which is not marked as exhibit. Neither party has produced the documents bearing the admitted signatures of Dasappa to prove the disputed signatures alleged to be found in the copy of the sale deed in Ex.D-1 or in its xerox copy. The trial court observed that, except for Ex.D-1, the certified copy of the sale deed, neither party has produced any material documents for the forensic investigation of the signatures of said Dasappa. Accordingly, the trial court has come to the concluded that the plaintiff has not made out a case and dismissed the application.

¶53

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff

¶54

submits that the Sub-Registrar will maintain a register containing the original documents, from which the signatures can be compared. It is submitted that the trial court failed to consider these aspects and dismissed the application in a mechanical manner. As there is a dispute regarding the signature on the sale deed, unless and until the said document is sent for expert opinion, prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff.

¶55

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:34087 WP No. 30583 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶58

perused the material on record, the relief sought is to declare that the sale deeds dated 26.11.1994, 23.09.2006 and 19.07.1994 are not binding on them, and to seek partition and separate possession of the suit-scheduled property. Now, by virtue of this application, they seek to compare the signatures in Ex.D-1 with the Xerox copies produced by the defendant, as per the list dated 26.06.2023, i.e., the sale deed dated 27.05.1952, for expert opinion. The Trial Court has rightly observed that there are no admitted signatures of one Dasappa available, and even the document relied upon for the year 1952 is not admitted and marked by the court. Without there being a document of admitted signatures, and when the matter is posted for arguments, that application cannot be allowed. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there may be a document available with the Sub-registrar and that he should be given an opportunity, and that the said document has to be compared with the signatures in the said document with the Registrar, is not appreciated by this Court. The suit was filed in the year 2022, and the entire evidence was completed when the matter was posted for arguments. The

¶59

¶60

NC: 2026:KHC:34087 WP No. 30583 of 2025

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

present application is filed relying on a document which is not

¶63

even marked as an exhibit before the court. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court.

¶64