Dismissed¶46

T. Krishnamurthy v. Marigowda

Karnataka HC6 Mar 2026WP/7657/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; WP No. 7657 of 2025 (GM-CPC); Justice K. V. Aravind; Order XII Rule 6 CPC; judgment on admissions; stray admission; PW.3 cross-examination admission (09.07.2024); declaration and injunction suit O.S. No.174/2020, III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Hassan; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The admission relied upon by the petitioner is a stray admission and is insufficient; the petitioner will have an opportunity in the course of the trial of the suit to demonstrate his case. ¶45

T. Krishnamurthy Vs Marigowda — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:13833 WP No. 7657 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

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

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶7

WRIT PETITION No. 7657 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

T. KRISHNAMURTHY, S/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O UDDURU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI VINOD MANOHAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

MARIGOWDA,

¶14

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

¶15

S/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,

¶16

SMT. BHAGYAMMA, W/O LATE BASAVARAJU, D/O LATE BOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶17

SMT. SHARADA, W/O LATE DYAVEGOWDA, D/O LATE BOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶18

RESIDENTS 1,2 & 3 ARE RESIDENTS OF UDDURU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK-573217.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:13833 WP No. 7657 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

SMT. RAJAMMA, W/O LATE BOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O KUPPALLI VILLAGE, HASSAN TALUK -573217.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI ASHWATH C.M., ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.01.2025 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HASSAN IN O.S.No.174/2020. ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER XII RULE 6 OF CPC AND DISMISS THE SUIT AGAINST THE PETITIONER BASED ON THE ADMISSIONS MADE BY PLAINTIFF No.2.

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Heard Sri Vinod Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Ashwath C.M., learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

¶29

The respondents-plaintiffs preferred O.S.

¶30

No.174/2020 seeking a declaration and injunction against the petitioner herein, who is arrayed as the defendant. Plaintiff No.2 examined herself as PW.3. In the course of her crossexamination on 09.07.2024, PW.3 stated that she does not

¶31

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:13833 WP No. 7657 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

know the defendant and that she has no objection to the dismissal of the suit. Based on this admission, the petitioner filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC seeking judgment on admissions. The trial Court, by the impugned order, rejected the application holding that such a stray admission cannot be considered in isolation by ignoring the other averments and evidence on record.

¶34

Sri Vinod Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that when PW.3 has categorically admitted that she does not know the defendant and that she has no objection to the dismissal of the suit, nothing survives for further trial in the suit. Therefore, the trial Court, upon entertaining the application, ought to have passed judgment.

¶35

Per contra, Sri Ashwath C.M., learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4, submits that the admission referred to in the cross-examination cannot be considered in isolation and that the entire evidence and pleadings in respect of the suit are required to be considered. It is submitted that the trial Court, after considering the pleadings and the evidence on record, has rightly rejected the application.

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:13833 WP No. 7657 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

The trial Court has recorded that the plaintiffs have

¶39

claimed right over the suit schedule property and have further asserted acquisition of such right in a partition and possession of the suit property. It is also recorded that the land in question was allotted to the share of the plaintiffs in a partition suit filed against the uncle of PW.3. It is further recorded that PW.3 deposed that she does not know the defendant and that she has no objection to the dismissal of the suit.

¶40

The trial Court further held that the stray admission cannot be considered for passing a judgment without further trial in the matter, having regard to the other material evidence on record. The trial Court also held that the plaintiffs have specifically pleaded title over the property and that both parties are required to adduce cogent evidence in support of their respective contentions. Accordingly, the trial Court rejected the application.

¶41

Having perused the pleadings and the reasons assigned by the trial Court, it is clear that the admission referred to by the petitioner for entertaining an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC can only be termed as a

¶42

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:13833 WP No. 7657 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

stray admission and is insufficient. The petitioner will have an opportunity in the course of the trial of the suit to demonstrate his case. In view of the specific pleadings in the suit, the admission alone cannot be considered. The issues need adjudication on evidence to be proved by both the parties.

¶46

In the light of the above, this Court finds no ground to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed .

¶47

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶48

VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

T. Krishnamurthy v. Marigowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Krishnamurthy v. Marigowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Srirangacharya Vs Loka Shikshana Trust

Smt Kanakamma Vs Smt Vishalakshmi @ Divya Shalini

Mohan K Reddy Vs Sri B N Govinda Reddy

Sri.Rudraiah.C Vs the State of Karnataka

Marigowda Vs Chikkegowda @ Gujjegowda

Mrs,Hanumakka @ Anuradha Vs Mr.H.Chanrashekar