Smt Kempa Rangamma Vs Smt Laxmamma

MR PUTTASWAMY @ PUTTAPPA S/O LATE SRI OBALAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT AMBEDKAR NAGARA SUBRAMANYA TEMPLE STREET M.C.HALLI VILLAGE AND POST KASABA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK-577228.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. D R BABU, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B N JAYADEVA., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SMT LAXMAMMA Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI W/O SRI CHIKKA RAMAIAH MURTHY AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS Location: HIGH COURTOF 2. SRI RAVISHANKAR K C KARNATAKA

¶15

SRI RAVISHANKAR K C S/O SRI CHIKKA RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶16

BOTH ARE R/AT KHB 88/A GOLDEN JUBILEE COLONY UPPER HUTTA, BHADRAVTHI -577301.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER AT ANNEXURE-G

¶19

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:14263 WP No. 3223 of 2026

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

DATED 09.09.2025, PASSED IN O.S. NO. 109 OF 2018 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE SENIOR CIVIL, JUDGE AND JMFC AT TARIKERE REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER 26 RULE 9 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AT ANNEXURE E. AND ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION AT ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

In this writ petition, the petitioners–defendant Nos.1 and 2 have called in question the order dated 09.09.2025 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Principal JMFC, Tarikere, on I.A.No.XIII filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 read

¶25

with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.109/2018, vide Annexure–G, whereby the application filed by the defendants seeking appointment of a Court Commissioner has been rejected.

¶26

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court in Original Suit.

¶27

The respondents–plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration and possession. After appearance, the

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:14263 WP No. 3223 of 2026

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

petitioners–defendants filed written statement and also

¶31

filed I.A.No.XIII under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking appointment of a Court Commissioner. The Trial Court by impugned order dated 09.09.2025 rejected the said application. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶32

The application was filed to identify as to who is in possession of the suit schedule property. The Trial Court, after referring to the judgment of this Court in the case of

¶33

Puttappa vs. Ramappa , reported in AIR 1996 KAR 257 , wherein this Court has held that it is not the function of a Court Commissioner to determine or report to the Court as to who is in possession of the property and hence rejected the said application. The petitioners submit that following the said judgment, this Court, in a similar matter between the same parties, has also dismissed W.P.No.3909/2026 on 21.02.2026.

¶34