Dismissed¶89

Smt Pushpalatha v. Shri Manjunatha

Karnataka HC16 Jul 2026WP/8701/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NC: 2026:KHC:36426; High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru; W.P. No.8701/2021 (GM-CPC); Article 227 Constitution of India; certiorari; Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC; Order VIII Rule 1-A CPC; Section 151 CPC; recall of order dated 13.02.2020; further chief examination of DW.2; production of Will dated 13.02.2007 by co-defendant; alleged beneficiary Smt. Kanthamma filed no written statement; fag end of proceedings; O.S. No.4368/2009; earlier Will dated 06.02.2007; suit for declaration; XXXVII Additional City Civil Judge Bangalore; Vijaykumar A. Patil, J.; writ petition rejected.

What did the court decide?

No error is found in the order of the trial Court calling for interference; the writ petition is devoid of merits and is rejected. ¶89

Smt Pushpalatha Vs Shri Manjunatha — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶89

Issue for consideration

Whether the common impugned order dated 13.03.2020 of the XXXVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore (CCH No.38), dismissing the applications under Order XVIII Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC and Order VIII Rule 1-A CPC seeking to recall the order dated 13.02.2020, permit DW.2 to lead further chief examination and permit the defendants to produce documents in O.S. No.4368/2009, calls for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. +1 more

¶43

Court's answer

No error is found in the order of the trial Court calling for interference; the writ petition is devoid of merits and is rejected.

¶89

Ratio / Principle

Production of the alleged Will by a co-defendant to oppose the relief of declaration at the fag end of the proceedings may not be appropriate, where the defendants had not raised the contention of the later Will in their written statement and the alleged beneficiary (Smt. Kanthamma) had filed no written statement; the trial Court rightly rejected the application on this basis.

¶89

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (W.P. No.8701/2021, GM-CPC, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India) — challenge to the common order dated 13.03.2020 of the XXXVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore (CCH No.38) in O.S. No.4368/2009 dismissing applications under Order XVIII Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC and Order VIII Rule 1-A CPC seeking recall of the order dated 13.02.2020, further chief examination of DW.2, and permission to produce a Will dated 13.02.2007 allegedly executed by Sri. Mallappa in favour of Smt. Kanthamma — plaintiff's suit for declaration rested on an earlier Will dated 06.02.2007 allegedly executed by Sri. Mallappa — applications filed when the matter was posted for arguments — held, the defendants had not pleaded the later Will in their written statement and Smt. Kanthamma, the alleged beneficiary, had filed no written statement; production of the alleged Will by a co-defendant to oppose the relief of declaration at the fag end of the proceedings may not be appropriate — no error in the trial Court's order warranting interference — writ petition rejected.

¶1

HC-KAR

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:36426 W.P. No.8701/2021

¶3

¶4

CNR: KAHC010180542021

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.8701/2021 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. PUSHPALATHA D/O LATE SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.

¶9

SHRI. SATHISH S/O LATE SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.

¶10

SHRI. MADHUSUDHANA S/O LATE SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.

¶11

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SL.NOS.1 TO 3 ARE R/AT. SINGAIANAPALYA NEAR MUNESHWARA TEMPLE MAHADEVAPURA POST BENGALURU-560048.

¶13

SMT. K.V. PADMAVATHI W/O LATE SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/A NO.204, 4TH BLOCK KAVERI COMPLEX, POLICE QUARTERS AUDUGODI, BENGALURU-560031.

¶14

SHRI. GANGAPPA G.V. S/O LATE CHIKKAVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/A NO.478, A BLOCK WARD NO.3, MANDIBANDE TOWN

¶15

NC: 2026:KHC:36426 W.P. No.8701/2021

¶16

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

CNR: KAHC010180542021

¶19

REPRESENTED BY SPA HOLDERS (1 TO 4).

¶20

…PETITIONERS

¶21

(BY SRI. PRAKASH T. HEBBAR, ADV.,)

¶22

AND:

¶23

SHRI. MANJUNATHA S/O KARIAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/A NO.299, 2ND CROSS SINGAIANA PALYA MAHADEVAPURA POST BENGALURU-560048.

¶24

SMT. NAGARATHNA D/O MUNIRAJU .N D/O LATE KARIYAPPA R/A C/O PUTTASWAMY NO.88, 2ND CROSS BEHIND GOVT PRIMARY SCHOOL SINGAYANAPALYA MAHADEVAURA POST BENGALURU-560048.

¶25

SRI. DARSHAN .L S/O LOKESH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS GRANDSON OF LATE KARIYAPPA.

¶26

SRI. DEEPAK .L S/O LOKESH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS GRANDSON OF LATE KARIYAPPA.

¶27

SL.NOS.3 & 4 ARE R/O DEVASANDRA DHAKALE SINGAYANAPALYA WHITE FIELD ROAD MAHADEVAPURA POST BENGALURU-560048.

¶28

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:36426 W.P. No.8701/2021

¶31

CNR: KAHC010180542021

¶32

SMT. JAYA W/O AMARANATH D/O LATE KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/A NO.39, AKSHAYA NILAYA RAJARAM LAYOUT 5TH CROSS, K. CHANNASANDRA HORAMAVU POST BENGALURU-560043.

¶33

SMT. KANTHAMMA W/O AMARANATH D/O LATE KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/A NO.88, 2ND CROSS BEHIND GOVT PRIMARY SCHOOL SINGAYANAPALYA MAHADEVAPURA POST BENGALURU-560043.

¶34

SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O LATE KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/A NO.88, 2DN CROSS BEHIND GOVT PRIMARY SCHOOL SINGAYANAPALYA MAHADEVAPURA POST BENGALURU-560043.

¶35

SRI. NARAYANASWAMY S/O KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/A NO.229, 2ND CROSS SINGAIANAPALYA MAHADEVAPURA POST BENGALURU-560048.

¶36

…RESPONDENTS

¶37

(BY SRI. SANTOSH, ADV., FOR SRI. M.S. VARADARAJAN, ADV., FOR R1 SRI. BADRINATH R, ADV., FOR R6

¶38

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:36426 W.P. No.8701/2021

¶41

CNR: KAHC010180542021

¶42

R2, R3, R4, R5, R7, R8 SERVED UNREPRESENTED)

¶43

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE COMMON IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.03.2020 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE XXXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, AT BANGALORE (CCH.NO.38) DISMISSING THE APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER ORDER XVIII RULE 17 AND ORDER VIII RULE 1-A OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SEEKING TO RECALL THE ORDER DATED 13.02.2020 AND TO PERMIT DW.2 TO LEAD FURTHER CHIEF EXAMINATION AND PERMIT THE DEFENDANTS TO PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTS BY ALLOWING IAs FILED UNDER XVIII RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC AND UNDER ORDER VIII RULE 1-A OF CPC IN O.S.NO.4368/2009 RESPECTIVELY & ETC.

¶44

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶45

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶46

ORAL ORDER

¶47

This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶48

“a) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to set aside the common impugned Order dated 13.03.2020 passed by the Hon’ble XXXVII Additional City Civil Judge, at Bangalore (CCH No.38) as per Annexure-A dismissing the applications filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 and Order VIII Rule 1-A of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to recall the order dated 13.02.2020 and to permit DW.2 to lead further chief examination and permit the defendants to produce the documents by allowing I.As filed under XVIII Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC

¶49

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:36426 W.P. No.8701/2021

¶52

CNR: KAHC010180542021

¶53

and under Order VIII Rule 1-A of CPC in O.S.No.4368/2009 respectively;

¶54

b) To grant such other or further relief/s as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case to the Petitioners, including the cost of this proceedings, in the interest of justice.”

¶55

Sri.Prakash T. Hebbar, learned counsel

¶56

appearing for the petitioners submits that respondent No.1 filed a suit for declaration contending that Sri.Mallappa, the brother of his father, Sri.Kariyappa had executed a Will dated 06.02.2007 in his favour. In the said suit, the petitioners, who are legal heirs of defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 have denied the right of the plaintiff and the alleged Will. It is submitted that defendant No.2 is the agreement holder and GPA holder of the prepositor Sri.Mallappa and defendant No.2-Smt.K.V.Padmavathi, executed a registered sale deed dated 06.10.2007 in favour of defendant No.1 and they are the owners of the 'B' schedule property as the acquisition of title is from original prepositor Sri.Mallappa. It is further submitted

¶57

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

NC: 2026:KHC:36426 W.P. No.8701/2021

¶60

CNR: KAHC010180542021

¶61

that the case of defendant Nos.1 and 2 before the trial Court is that the plaintiff has set up the Will which was never executed by Sri.Mallappa, brother of Sri.Kariyappa in favour of plaintiff/Sri.Manjunatha. During the course of the trial, the defendants came to know that the original prepositor, Sri.Mallappa had executed Will dated 13.02.2007 in favour of Smt.Kanthamma, defendant No.3(f) in the suit. Thereafter, legal heirs of defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 filed applications to recall the stage of further evidence of DW2 and sought permission to produce the document i.e., a Will, which came to be rejected by trial Court by erroneous finding that the plaintiff is not seeking any claim based on the Will dated 13.02.2007. It is also submitted that the defendants are contending that the later Will executed by Sri.Mallappa in favour of Smt.Kanthamma has to prevail and not the earlier Will claimed by the plaintiff. Hence, the said document is necessary to decide the suit. Accordingly, he seeks to allow the petition.

¶62

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

NC: 2026:KHC:36426 W.P. No.8701/2021

¶65

CNR: KAHC010180542021

¶66

Per contra, Sri.Santosh, learned counsel

¶67

appearing for Sri.M.S.Varadarajan, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri.Badrinath R., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 support the impugned order of the trial Court and submit that defendant Nos.1 and 2 in their written statement has nowhere stated with regard to this Will and Smt.Kanthamma, the beneficiary under the alleged Will dated 13.02.2007 had not filed any written statement in the trial Court contending that there is a Will in her favour. It is submitted that in the absence of any such stand by the beneficiary, a stranger to the Will cannot seek to produce the same. That too, when the matter is posted for arguments. The trial Court, considering the said aspects has rightly rejected the said application which does not call for any interference. Accordingly, they seek to dismiss the writ petition.

¶68

I have heard the arguments of the learned

¶69

counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the

¶70

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

NC: 2026:KHC:36426 W.P. No.8701/2021

¶73

CNR: KAHC010180542021

¶74

respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record.

¶75

Sri.Manjunath - respondent No.1 herein filed OS.No.4368/2009 seeking relief of declaration that he is the absolute owner of the suit Schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ property by declaring that the sale deed set up by defendant No.1 dated 06.10.2007 is null and void and the other consequential reliefs. In the said suit, the petitioners are legal heirs of deceased defendant Nos.1 and defendant No.2. They have filed a detailed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint as well as the assertion of the plaintiff that one Sri.Mallappa, the brother of father of the plaintiff had executed a Will dated 06.02.2007 in favour of the plaintiff. The parties have led the evidence, and the matter was posted for arguments. At that stage, legal heirs of defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 filed two applications. One to reopen the stage of evidence by permitting DW2 to lead further evidence and another to

¶76

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

NC: 2026:KHC:36426 W.P. No.8701/2021

¶79

CNR: KAHC010180542021

¶80

sought permission to produce the Will dated 13.02.2007 alleged to have been executed by the original prepositor Sri.Mallappa in favour of Smt.Kanthamma. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff. The trial Court under the impugned order rejected the said application solely on the ground that the plaintiff is not relying on the said Will.

¶81

Be that as it may, it is required to be noticed

¶82

that legal heirs of defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 are contending that the later Will executed by the prepositor Sri.Mallappa in favour of Smt.Kanthamma is the Will that has to prevail and not the earlier Will dated 06.02.2007 stated to have been executed by Sri.Mallappa, the brother of Sri.Kariyappa in favour of the plaintiff. The said aspect can be appreciated if the defendants would have raised such contention in the written statement or at least Smt.Kanthama, a beneficiary of the alleged Will dated

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

NC: 2026:KHC:36426 W.P. No.8701/2021

¶85

10 -

¶86

CNR: KAHC010180542021

¶87

13.02.2007 would have filed a written statement

¶88

contending that there exists a Will in her favour.

¶89

It is also required to be noticed that Smt.Kanthamma, the alleged beneficiary under the alleged Will dated 13.02.2007 had not filed any written statement in the said suit. I am of the considered view that the production of the alleged Will by the co-defendant to oppose the relief of declaration at the fag end of the proceedings may not be appropriate and the trial Court considering the said aspect has rightly come to the conclusion and rejected the application. I do not find any error in the order of the trial Court calling for interference. The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is

¶90

rejected .

¶91

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶92

ABK, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

Smt Pushpalatha v. Shri Manjunatha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Pushpalatha v. Shri Manjunatha

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. Kempanna Vs Sadappa (Dead) Represented by Lrs

B Siddaraju Vs Hanumanthu

Sri Niroop D J Vs Hanuma Naika

Smt. Devaki Vs Smt S Pankaja

Sri. M.N. Ranga Swamy Naidu Vs Sri. H.N. Manjunath

Sri M N Narendra Vs Sri M S Ananda