Dismissed¶52

Sri Swamy v. Sri B Marigowda

Karnataka HC8 Jul 2026WP/9474/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC single-judge writ order (Vijaykumar A. Patil, J., 08.07.2026) rejecting W.P. No.9474/2021 (GM-CPC): defendant's application under Order XXVI Rule 10(A) read with Section 151 CPC for handwriting-expert examination of plaintiff's signatures on Ex.D33 (unregistered agreement of sale dated 24.06.1988) refused in OS.No.90/2012, a permanent-injunction suit over Sy.No.136 (1 acre), Chandagalu Village, Srirangapatna; burden of proving lawful possession rests on plaintiff; no specific-performance suit or counterclaim by defendants; trial Court order dated 13.02.2020 upheld; writ petition dismissed/rejected.

What did the court decide?

In a suit for permanent injunction where the plaintiff asserts ancestral ownership and possession, the burden lies upon the plaintiff to prove the lawful possession. ¶44

Sri Swamy Vs Sri B Marigowda — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶52

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 13.02.2020 of the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Srirangapatna (IA No.Nil in OS.No.90/2012) dismissing defendant No.1's application for reference of Ex.D33 (agreement of sale dated 24.06.1988) to a handwriting expert should be quashed. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

As the defendants have not filed any suit for specific performance to enforce the agreement of sale dated 24.06.1988, in the absence of any such proceedings they cannot ask for appointment of a handwriting expert for verification of the plaintiff's signatures on Ex.D33.

¶47

Ratio / Principle

In a suit for permanent injunction where the plaintiff asserts ancestral ownership and possession, the burden lies upon the plaintiff to prove the lawful possession.

¶44

Key takeaways

This Court finds no error in the finding recorded by the trial Court in dismissing the application.ratio¶47
The defendants did not raise any counterclaim regarding possession of the property in question; their written statement is only a denial of the plaint assertions, contending possession pursuant to the agreement of sale dated 24.06.1988.ratio¶48
Filing an application by defendant No.1 based on the alleged unregistered agreement of sale dated 24.06.1988 and seeking appointment of a handwriting expert to examine the plaintiff's signatures would not arise, as the burden is on the plaintiff to prove his case; hence the writ petition is devoid of merits.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Bengaluru), 08.07.2026 — Vijaykumar A. Patil, J. — Writ Petition No.9474/2021 (GM-CPC) under Articles 226 and 227, Constitution of India — REJECTED. The petitioner (defendant No.1 in OS.No.90/2012, a permanent-injunction suit by respondent No.1 over Sy.No.136, Chandagalu Village, Kasaba Hobli, Srirangapatna) challenged the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn)'s order dated 13.02.2020 (IA No.Nil) dismissing his application under Order XXVI Rule 10(A) read with Section 151 CPC seeking reference of an unregistered agreement of sale dated 24.06.1988 (Ex.D33) to a handwriting expert to verify the plaintiff's signatures. Holding that in an injunction suit the burden of proving lawful possession lies on the plaintiff, and that absent any suit for specific performance or counterclaim by the defendants, expert examination of Ex.D33 'would not arise', the Court found no error in the trial Court's dismissal and rejected the petition.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:34336 W.P. No.9474/2021

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.9474/2021 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. SWAMY S/O LATE HONNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT NAGAYANAHUNDI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. AKARSH KUMAR GOWDA, ADV.,)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI. B. MARIGOWDA S/O M. BORANNA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT CHANDAGALU VILLAGE KASABA VILLAGE SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK.

¶14

SMT. CHANDRAMMA W/O SWAMY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NAGAYANAHUNDI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. SUNEEL S. NARAYAN, ADV., FOR R1 R2 SERVED)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:34336 W.P. No.9474/2021

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.02.2020, MADE ON IA NO. NIL OS NO.90/2012, PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN), SRIRANGAPATNA VIDE ANNEXURE -E & ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶25

“i. To quash the order dated 13.02.2020, made on IA.No.Nil in OS.No.90/2012, passed by the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Srirangapatna vide Annexure-E;

¶26

ii. To grant such other relief/reliefs as this Hon’ble Court as deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶27

Sri.Akarsh Kumar Gowda, learned counsel

¶28

appearing for the petitioner submits the respondent No.1 filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner and respondent No.2. In the said suit, the defendants filed a detailed written statement denying the possession of the

¶29

plaintiff over the suit schedule property and it was contended that the plaintiff had executed an agreement of

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:34336 W.P. No.9474/2021

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

sale dated 24.06.1988 in favour of the defendants and under the said agreement possession was handed over to them. It is submitted that defendant No.1 filed an application seeking appointment of a handwriting expert to ascertain the signatures of the plaintiff on Ex.D33 i.e., agreement of sale dated 24.06.1988. However, the trial Court erroneously dismissed the application. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by allowing the application and seeks to refer Ex.D33 to a handwriting expert for examination of the plaintiff’s signatures.

¶33

Per contra, Sri.Suneel S. Narayan, learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff supports the order of the trial Court and submits that trial Court has rightly taken note of the fact that the defendants had not filed any suit for specific performance of the alleged agreement of sale and no notice has been issued. Hence, the prayer to refer Ex.D33 to a handwriting expert would not arise. Accordingly, he seeks to dismiss the petition.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:34336 W.P. No.9474/2021

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

I have heard the arguments of the learned

¶38

counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the material available on record.

¶39

The respondent No.1 filed OS.No.90/2012

¶40

seeking judgment and decree in his favour against the defendants for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and the persons claiming under them from interfering with the plaintiff's possession over the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property is a land bearing Sy.No.136, measuring 1 acre, situated at Chandagalu Village, Kasaba Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk. The defendants filed a detailed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It was specifically contented that the plaintiff had executed an agreement of sale dated 24.06.1988 in favour of the defendants and under the said agreement possession of the suit schedule property was handed over to the defendants. Thereafter, the parties have adduced their evidence. At that stage,

¶41

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:34336 W.P. No.9474/2021

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

defendant No.1 filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 10(A) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) seeking reference of the agreement of sale dated 24.06.1988/Ex.D33 to a handwriting expert for comparison and verification of the plaintiff’s signatures thereon. The trial Court, under the impugned order dismissed the said application.

¶44

It is required to be noticed that the suit filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff is one for permanent injunction. The plaintiff has made averment in the plaint that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property and that he is in possession over the suit schedule property. In a suit of this nature, the burden lies upon the plaintiff to prove the lawful possession. In support of his case, the plaintiff has adduced the evidence and produced necessary documents before the trial Court. The defendants, on the other hand, is seeking to establish their possession over the suit schedule property by placing reliance on an unregistered agreement of sale dated 24.06.1988. The trial Court,

¶45

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:34336 W.P. No.9474/2021

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

taking note of the said aspect has rightly observed that the defendants have not filed any suit for specific performance to enforce the said agreement of sale. In the absence of any such proceedings, the defendants cannot ask for appointment of a handwriting expert for verification of the plaintiff’s signatures on Ex.D33. I do not find any error in the finding recorded by the trial Court in dismissing the application.

¶48

It is also required to be noticed that the defendants have not raised any counterclaim with regard to the possession over the property in question in their written statement. The written statement is only denial of the plaint assertions. While denying the same, it is contended that the defendants are in possession pursuant to the agreement of sale dated 24.06.1988. When things stood thus, it is the plaintiff, who has to prove his lawful possession over the suit schedule property and if he is able to prove the same by adducing cogent evidence before the trial Court, the trial Court would consider his

¶49

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:34336 W.P. No.9474/2021

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

prayer for decree of injunction. In the said suit, filing an application by defendant No.1 based on an alleged unregistered agreement of sale dated 24.06.1988 and seeking appointment of a handwriting expert to examine the signatures of the plaintiff would not arise, as the burden is on the plaintiff to prove his case. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is rejected .

¶53

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶54

ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

Sri Swamy v. Sri B Marigowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Swamy v. Sri B 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

K. Vasu Vs M.V. Dayanand

Muniraja Reddy Vs Smt.Chinnamma

Vafa S/O Zakhir Husain Vs Ajmi D/O Badruddin

M.H Sanaulla Vs M.H. Kaleemulla

Strategic Outsourcing Service Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. P. Chandrashekar Reddy Vs Mr. S Thyagaraja