Dismissed

Smt Trupti Rohini v. Smt Saraswathamma

Karnataka HC6 Apr 2026WP/33576/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ relief against rejection of her Order XI Rules 12 and 14 CPC application for production of defendants' bank, income-tax and asset records in a partition suit, contending suit properties were joint family acquisitions from ancestral sources. The High Court held burden lies on the plaintiff to first prove joint family character and dismissed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt Trupti Rohini Vs Smt Saraswathamma — Partition | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:18408 WP No. 33576 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 33576 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT TRUPTI ROHINI

¶10

W/O DR. B.J. DHARANISH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.52, COUTHURST ROAD, BLACKHEATH, LONDON SE3 8TW.

¶11

ALSO AVAILABLE AT NO. 148, 5TH CROSS, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, 3RD PHASE, 6TH BLOCK, BENGALURU 560 085.

¶12

Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER, SRI. H. JAVAREGOWDA S/O. HONNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, NO. 148, 5TH CROSS, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, 3RD PHASE, 6TH BLOCK, BENGALURU 560 085.

¶14

…PETITIONER (BY SMT.ANANYA K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.DHANANJAY K.V., ADVOCATE)

¶15

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:18408 WP No. 33576 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

AND:

¶18

SMT SARASWATHAMMA W/O. LATE. BOREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 91 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 3571, 1-H CROSS, BEHIND GIRINAGAR POLICE STATION, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, GIRINAGAR, BENGALURU 560 085.

¶19

SRI. M.D. DIVAKAR S/O. LATE. BOREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT VILLA NO. 3, TRINETRA, BEHIND RENAISSANCE PROSPERO,BELLARY ROAD, KASHINAGAR, BYATARANPURA, BENGALURU 560 092.

¶20

SRI. TRISHUL BHARANI S/O. M.D. DIVAKAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT VILLA NO. 3, TRINETRA, BEHIND RENAISSANCE PROSPERO,BELLARY ROAD, KASHINAGAR, BYATARANPURA, BENGALURU 560 092.

¶21

SMT. TEJASVI POORVA D/O. M.D. DIVAKAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT VILLA NO. 3, TRINETRA,

¶22

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:18408 WP No. 33576 of 2025

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

BEHIND RENAISSANCE PROSPERO, BELLARY ROAD, KASHINAGAR, BYATARANPURA, BENGALURU 560 092.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04-SEP-2025 PASSED ON I.A. NO. III (AT ANNEXURE-H PAGE NOS. 69-74)B. CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW THE I.A. NO. III FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER XI RULE 12 AND 14 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, IN O.S. NO. 7963 OF 2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-15) AND ETC.,

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS

¶28

DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition

¶32

challenging the order dated 04.09.2025 on I.A.No.III in O.S.No.7963/2022 on the file of the Court of VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru

¶33

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:18408 WP No. 33576 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

wherein the application filed under Order XI Rules 12 and

¶37

14 read with Section 151 of CPC, has been rejected.

¶38

The petitioner herein instituted O.S.No.7963/2022 against the respondents seeking relief of partition of suit schedule properties.

¶39

The respondents filed written statement denying the petition averments. It is also contended that Item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule ‘A’ property were barren lands, no source of water and no income have been generated as the said lands were not fit for cultivation.

¶40

The plaintiff in the application filed under Order

¶41

XI Rules 12 and 14 prayed to direct the defendants to declare on oath, by way of an affidavit, the production of documents relating to the documents specified in the affidavit. The documents prayed to be produced by defendant No.1 are Bank Records, Income Tax Records, Business Records and Financial Ledgers. The documents sought to be produced by defendant No.2 are Income and

¶42

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:18408 WP No. 33576 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Wealth Records, Banking and Financial Records, Property and Asset Transaction Records and Corporate and Business Records. The documents sought to be produced by defendant No.3 are Employment Records, Income Tax Records, Bank Records and Gift Records. The documents sought to be produced by defendant No.4 are Income Tax Records for 7 years, complete Bank Statements for 7 years, copies of all registered sale deeds for any immovable property acquired by her and registration certificate for any motor vehicles acquired by her since 2010.

¶45

The trial Court considering the nature of the

¶46

suit and the burden to be discharged by the plaintiff, rejected the application.

¶47

Smt. Ananya K., learned counsel appearing for

¶48

the petitioner submits that the plaintiff has not been residing in India for the past 20 years. It is submitted that the properties subject matter of the partition suit are

¶49

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:18408 WP No. 33576 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

acquired from the sources generated from the ancestral properties and hence, all the properties would constitute joint family properties.

¶53

It is submitted that unless the defendants

¶54

establish or prove the source of income is not from the ancestral properties, the same are required to be considered as joint family properties. To prove and establish such contention, the documents requested in the application are relevant. Hence, she submits that the trial Court committed an error in not entertaining the application.

¶55

Considered the submissions made by the

¶56

learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶57

The suit is for partition. It is pleaded that the

¶58

suit schedule items are joint family properties and the plaintiff is entitled to 1/5^th share. It appears that Item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties are admitted to be the ancestral properties. The petitioner is claiming

¶59

¶60

NC: 2026:KHC:18408 WP No. 33576 of 2025

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

share in schedule ‘B’ property on the ground that schedule

¶63

‘B’ property is acquired from the source generated from schedule ‘A’ property. The said contention has been flatly denied by the defendants by contending that the schedule

¶64

‘A’ property is not suitable for cultivation and no cultivation has taken place.

¶65

The trial Court further held that the initial burden is on the person who claims the properties as joint family or ancestral properties. It is held that unless the initial burden is discharged, the burden cannot be shifted on the defendants. It is also held that to discharge the initial burden, the application at this stage cannot be entertained. It is held that even if the defendants failed to establish an independent financial source to purchase the property, unless the initial burden is discharged by the petitioner, the same would not prove the case of the plaintiff.

¶66

¶67

NC: 2026:KHC:18408 WP No. 33576 of 2025

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

The trial Court after recording the above finding rejected the application.

¶70

This Court on consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as also considering the reasons assigned by the trial Court and the legal position considered by the trial Court is not inclined to entertain this petition. The finding recorded by the trial Court is based on the settled legal position. If application is allowed at this stage, it would amount to directing the defendants to provide evidence to prove the plaintiff’s case. Burden is on the plaintiff to prove her case. The present petition is devoid of merits and accordingly rejected.

¶71

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶72

KTY/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Smt Trupti Rohini v. Smt Saraswathamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt Trupti Rohini v. Smt Saraswathamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Ramaiah Vs Sri Puttanna

Rao Bahadur B P Annaswamy Mudaliar Cie'S Public Charities Vs Faziullah Mekhri Alias Fazal Mekhri

Sri C M Nagaraj Vs Smt. Usha Narayana Rao

Smt Manjula Vs Smt Kanthamma

M/S Katalyst Productions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mrs. Ambika G Nayak

Sri P Sriram Vs Sri N Maruthi