Dismissed¶51

Sri H C Nagaraj v. Smt H C Sudha

Karnataka HC6 Apr 2026WP/4672/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Registered Will taken on record 'subject to proof and admissibility' versus acceptance; trial Court order on I.A.Nos.18 & 19 in O.S.No.34/2019; I.A.No.18 under Section 151 CPC; writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 (GM-CPC) against Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Channagiri/Chennagiri; defendant's rights and defence not prejudiced by mere recording of a Will; writ petition rejected/dismissed; no precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Under the impugned order the trial Court has taken the document/Will on record subject to proof and admissibility. ¶46

Sri H C Nagaraj Vs Smt H C Sudha — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should quash the trial Court's Annexure-A order dated 19.01.2026 in O.S.No.34/2019 passed on I.A.Nos.18 and 19 — counsel contending the order was infirm because a Will cannot be accepted without evidence of its genuineness and execution, and the Court assessing that the order merely took the plaintiffs' document/Will on record subject to proof and admissibility.

¶41

Court's answer

Under the impugned order the trial Court has taken the document/Will on record subject to proof and admissibility.

¶46

Ratio / Principle

Mere taking of the Will on record would not prejudice the petitioner's rights and defence; the petitioner has opportunity before the trial Court.

¶46

Key takeaways

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and the order of the trial Court, the Court found counsel's submission that the order suffers from infirmity to be unfounded.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P. No. 4672 of 2026 (GM-CPC), High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, K.V. Aravind, J., oral order dated 06-04-2026. The petitioner, Defendant No.1 in O.S.No.34/2019 (Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chennagiri), sought under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution to quash the Annexure-A trial Court order dated 19.01.2026, described in the cause title as dismissing I.A.No.18 filed under Section 151 CPC. Plaintiffs' I.A.No.18 had prayed to 'accept' their registered Will in favour of plaintiff No.3; the trial Court's order instead allowed I.A.Nos.18 and 19 and took the document/Will on record 'subject to proof and admissibility'. Counsel argued the order was infirm since a Will cannot be accepted without evidence of its genuineness and execution. The Court held that the trial Court had only taken the Will on record subject to proof and admissibility, that mere recording would not prejudice the petitioner's rights or defence and left him opportunity before the trial Court, and that counsel's submission was unfounded; the writ petition was accordingly rejected (dismissed). No precedent was cited.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:18410 WP No. 4672 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 4672 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI H C NAGARAJ

¶9

S/O LATE, H.CHANNABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/AT SANTHEBENNURU VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577552.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. P MANJUNATHA., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

SMT H C SUDHA

¶15

W/O.G.N. KUMAR AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT 13^TH CROSS, SREEANJANEYA EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE – 577002.

¶16

SMT. H.C.SUNITHA W/O. SHIVASHANKARA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO.1853/1349, NRUPATUNGA EXTENSION, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572101

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:18410 WP No. 4672 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

DR.H.C.BASAVARAJ S/O CHANNABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, MEDICAL PRACTITIONER, R/AT NO. NO.1882/1, A BLOCK, 1ST CROSS, S.S. BHADAVANE, DAVANGERE-577002.

¶21

SMT. SHOBHA M.C. W/O H.C. NAGARAJA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O SANTHEBENNUR VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISRICT.

¶22

SRI. M.C. MALLIKARJUNA, S/O CHIKKEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O MALENAHALLI VILLAGE, KANAKATTE HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISRICT.

¶23

SMT.RATNAMMA H.C W/O LATE H.CHANNABASAPPA, R/O SANTHEBENNUR VILLAGE, CHENNAGIRITALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577552. DEAD BY L.RS. PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 3 ALREADY ON RECORD

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ANNX-A ORDER DATED 19.01.2026 IN OS.NO.34/2019 ON ORDER

¶26

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:18410 WP No. 4672 of 2026

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHANNAGIRI BY DISMISSING IA NO.18 U/SEC 151 OF CPC.

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

The present petition by the Defendant No.1 in O.S.No.34/2019 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chennagiri, impugning the order passed on IA Nos.18 and 19 by the trial Court.

¶34

Sri P. Manjunatha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the trial Court has taken the document/Will produced by the plaintiffs on record subject to proof and admissibility, the prayer made in I.A.No.18 is to accept the registered Will in favour of the plaintiff No.3.

¶35

3. It is submitted that without evidence to prove

¶36

the genuineness and execution of the Will, the same

¶37

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:18410 WP No. 4672 of 2026

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

cannot be accepted. Hence, he submits that the order of the trial Court suffers from infirmity.

¶41

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the order of the trial Court, the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is unfounded. Though prayer is made in I.A.No.18 to accept the registered Will in favour of the plaintiff No.3,

¶42

the trial Court has passed the following:

¶43

“ ORDER

¶44

“I.A.No.18 and 19 filed by the counsel for the plaintiffs are hereby allowed and thereby document/Will produced by the plaintiff is taken on record subject to proof and admissibility. For E/cross of PW. Call on 3/2.”

¶45

5. The trial Court under the impugned order has

¶46

taken the document/will on record subject to proof and admissibility. The petitioner has opportunity before the trial Court. Mere taking will on record would not prejudice the rights and defence of the petitioner.

¶47

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:18410 WP No. 4672 of 2026

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50