Disposed

Sri Nanjunada Reddy v. Smt Nagamma

Karnataka HC4 Feb 2026WP/34075/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenging an order allowing defendants to produce additional documents in a partition suit involving a disputed will was disposed of without interference. The High Court held that the trial court exercised discretion properly, leaving admissibility of the will open for trial.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of without interfering with the impugned order; liberty reserved for petitioners to urge contentions regarding admissibility and proof during trial.

Sri Nanjunada Reddy Vs Smt Nagamma — Partition | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:6440 WP No. 34075 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.34075 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI NANJUNADA REDDY, S/O LATE APPANNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/AT SINGAIAHNAPALYA VILLAGE, K.R.PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK.

¶11

SMT. PAPPAMMA, D/O LATE APPANNA REDDY, W/O VENKATARAMANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT KAVERI NAGARA, MAHADEVAPURA POST, WHITE FIELD ROAD, BENGALURU.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI G.B.NANDISH GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶14

Digitally signed by PAVITHRA B

¶15

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

AND:

¶17

SMT. NAGAMMA, W/O LATE APPANNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS.

¶18

SMT. PAPAMMA, D/O LATE APPANNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

¶19

SMT. MUNIRATHNA, W/O LATE APPANNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶20

SRI NAGAPPA REDDY, S/O LATE APPANNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

¶21

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:6440 WP No. 34075 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

SMT. VARALAKSHMI, D/O LATE APPANNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

¶24

SMT. SANDYA, D/O LATE APPANNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.

¶25

ALL ARE R/A SINGAIAHNAPALYA, K.R.PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK.

¶26

M/S. SAI GOWRI DEVELOPERS, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.36, BYRASANDRA, C.V.RAMAN NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 093. REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI PALGUN ANNA REDDY.

¶27

SRI PALGUN ANNA REDDY, S/O. LATE SRI A.DAMODAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.P1, SAI KASHYAP VILLA, 5^TH CROSS, NAGAVARPALYA, C.V.RAMARI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 093.

¶28

SRI SAURABH JAIN, S/O. SRI SHRIPALLUNIA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.

¶29

SMT. SHEETAL JAIN, W/O SRI SAURABH JAIN, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, AND 10 ARE R/AT SAI GOWRI RESIDENCY, 1^ST CROSS BYRASANDRA, C.V RAMAN NAGAR BUS STOP, C.V RAMAN NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 093.

¶30

MRS. PANYUSHA KODURU, D/O.SRI SRIDHAR REDDY KODURU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.P1, SAI KASHYAP VILLA,

¶31

5^TH CROSS, NAGAVARPALYA,

¶32

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:6440 WP No. 34075 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

C.V.RAMAN NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 093

¶36

…RESPONDENTS

¶37

(BY SRI D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI ASHOK HANDE, ADVOCATE)

¶38

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.10.2025 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE X ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU ON IA NO.17 IN OS NO.5052/2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-K ETC.,

¶39

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

¶40

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶41

ORAL ORDER

¶42

This petition by the plaintiffs in OS.No.5052/2016 is directed against the impugned order dated 09.10.2025, whereby the application i.e., I.A.No.XVII filed by the defendants under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) read with Section 151 of CPC seeking permission/leave to produce additional documents was allowed by the trial Court by holding as under:

¶43

“ ORDERS ON I.A.No.XVII

¶44

I.A.No.XVII is filed by defendants under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) r/w Section 151 CPC seeking the leave to produce the additional documents sought to be produced in I.A.No.17.

¶45

2. The application is seriously objected by the plaintiffs by filing objection statement.

¶46

3. Heard the arguments.

¶47

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:6440 WP No. 34075 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

4. The point for determination of the Court is-

¶51

Whether the defendants are entitled to produce the documents sought to be produced in I.A.No.XVII?

¶52

5. Finding of this Court on the above point is in the affirmative, for the following:-

¶53

- REASONS :-

¶54

6. The plaintiffs have instituted this suit for partition and separate possession. The defendants have taken up a contention that the WILL is executed in favour of the defendant No.1 dated 20.10.1980 executed by one late Appanna Reddy. In order to prove the WILL the defendants would like to produce the documents sought to be produced in I.A.No.XVII, which includes the certified copy of the thumb impression register in Form No.14, reflecting the signature and thumb impression of Appanna Reddy and the certified copy of the registered WILL in BookIII.

¶55

7. The contention of the plaintiffs is that earlier the court has rejected the request of the defendants to mark the WILL and also the application filed by them for forwarding the same to compare the signature for scientific examination and therefore, the application is filed to protract the proceedings.

¶56

8. The contention of the defendants is that in spite of all efforts, the defendants could not secure the attesting witnesses and also the witnesses who can identify the signature of the attesting witnesses. In this regard, the defendant No.1 has filed affidavits dated 15.11.2024 and 23.11.2024. It is the contention of the defendants that they are unable to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 68 and 69 of Indian Evidence Act and therefore they are entitled to lead other evidence to prove the WILL.

¶57

9. No doubt, Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 mandates that WILL cannot be admitted in evidence unless at least one attesting witness is examined before the court. Section 69 provides that

¶58

¶59

NC: 2026:KHC:6440 WP No. 34075 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

if no such attesting witness can be found, it must be proved that the attestation of one witness at least is in his handwriting. The defendants have taken up a contention that as there are no witnesses available they are unable to comply under Section 68 as well as 69 of Indian Evidence Act.

¶62

10. Section 71 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 provides that in other cases, the execution may be proved by other evidence. Section 71 of Indian Evidence Act is meant to lend assistance and for the rescue of a party who had done his best, but driven to a state of helplessness and impossibility and thereby to provide a means to prove the WILL. Therefore, when the defendants are able to show that none of the attesting witnesses to the WILL are available and can be secured through the process of court and also the witnesses who can identify the signature of the attesting witnesses, the defendants are entitled to prove the WILL by other mode. Having regard to these aspects, in the opinion of the court, the defendants should be allowed to admit the WILL in evidence subject to its proof. All the contentions with regard to the proof and its genuineness are kept open. Consequently, above point is answered in the affirmative and the following order is passed:-

¶63

ORDER

¶64

I.A.No.XVII is filed by defendants under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) r/w Section 151 CPC is allowed.

¶65

The defendants are permitted to produce the documents sought in I.A.No.17 and permitted to produce the original WILL in evidence keeping all the questions with regard to the proof to be agitated during the trial.

¶66

Further evidence of DW2 by 25.10.2025.”

¶67

Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

¶68

¶69

NC: 2026:KHC:6440 WP No. 34075 of 2025

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the trial Court has correctly and properly exercised its discretion in permitting production of documents and by leaving open all contentions regarding proof, admissibility etc., to be decided by the trial Court in accordance with law.

¶72

Under these circumstances, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, which cannot be said to be capricious or perverse or having occasion failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Radhey Shyam and Others Vs. Chhabi Nath and Others – (2015) 5 SCC 423 ; K.P.Natarajan and Others Vs. Muthalammal and Others – AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohd. Ali Vs. V.Jaya – (2022) 10 SCC 477.

¶73

Under these circumstances, I do not find any ground to

¶74

interfere with the impugned order and the petition deserves to be disposed of by issuing certain directions.

¶75

In the result, I pass the following

¶76

¶77

NC: 2026:KHC:6440 WP No. 34075 of 2025

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

ORDER

¶80

(i) Writ petition is disposed of without interfering with the impugned order.

¶81

(ii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioners to urge all contentions as regards admissibility, proof, relevance, probative value etc., of the additional documents sought to be produced by the respondents.

¶82

(iii) All rival contentions in this regard are kept open to be decided by the trial Court in accordance with law.

¶83

(iv) No opinion is expressed on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions.

¶84

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶85

¶86

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

Sri Nanjunada Reddy v. Smt Nagamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Nanjunada Reddy v. Smt Nagamma

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

M/S Lakepoint Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs Smt Lalithamma

Smt. Asha Vs K Shashidara

Mr Dhanush T C Vs Nil

Sri Munikrishnappa Vs M Manickam

Vinay Kumar Sarda Vs Sumithra R

Sri Muniyappa Vs M/S Shine Educational and Management Consultant Pvt. Ltd.