IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P.NO.14986/2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
MS V VARSHITHA D/O. LATE VISHVESHWARA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT HONNEBAGI VILLAGE, C.N. HALLI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT -572214 REPRESENTED BY SPA HOLDER:
MRS. KALPANA ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.THONTADHARYA R.K, FOR SRI AJIT P B, ADVOCATES) AND:
1. MR UDAYSHANKAR S/O. LATE RAJASHEKARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, 2. MRS. SIDDAGANGAMMA W/O. LATE. PRATHAPA RUDRAPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 3. MRS. CHANDRAMOHAN S/O. LATE PRATHAPA RUDRAPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 4. MR. YEDIYURAPPA S/O. LATE. PRATHAPA RUDRAPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 5. MS. KAMALAKSHI D/O. LATE PRATHAPA RUDRAPA, MAJOR 6. MR. BETTALINGEGOWDA S/O. RAJASHEKARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 7. MR. BASAVANNA S/O. RAJASHEKARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, 8. MR. KUMARA SWAMY S/O. LATE RAJASHEKARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESPONDENTS 1 TO 8 ARE R/AT MARALEHALLI, SIRA GATE POST, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT -572106 9. MRS. ANNAPOORNA W/O. MR. NANDEESH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT KUKUMANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT -572101 10. MRS. PARVATHAMMA S/O. SIDDARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 11. MRS. SUMITHRA W/O. MR. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.10 & 11 ARE R/AT MARALEHALLI, SIRA GATE POST, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT- 572106 ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 02.03.2017 IN O.S.333/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC C/C I- ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, AT TUMAKURU AT ANNEX-M ON I.A.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri. Thontadharya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. P.B.Ajit for petitioner. Perused the impugned order dated 02.03.2017, whereunder application filed by defendant No.8 under Order 26 Rule 10-A read with Sections 45 and 73 of the Evidence Act for sending the documents Exs.D-1, P-1, P-53, P-54 and P-55 to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Bangalore, for comparison of admitted signature with that of the disputed signature, has been called in question.
2. It is the contention of Sri.Thontadharya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that trial Court ought not to have allowed the said application and the very fact that document Ex.D-1 indicating that there is division of properties between the parties creating a right, was hit by Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, and it was an inadmissible document and as such, trial Court should not have sent the said document for comparison of signatures. Though this Court would not examine the contention with regard to the admissibility of documents, inasmuch as, any opinion expressed by this Court at this stage is likely to prejudice the right of both the parties and as such, this Court would only exercise as to whether the exercise undertaken by the trial Court to send the disputed document for comparison of signatures found therein is correct or otherwise and it has to be answered in the affirmative and no fault can be found with trial Court order, inasmuch as, defendant who has entered the witness box as D.W.1 in her cross-examination had denied her signature found on Ex.D-1.
3. Report of the Commissioner may throw some light on this aspect and in the event of trial Court arriving at a conclusion that it is an admissible document, it would definitely look into said piece of evidence also available on record and other evidence tendered by the parties with regard to execution of Ex.D-1 by D.W.1 herself and on behalf of her daughter. In that view of the matter, this Court finds there is no error committed by the trial Court calling for interference at the hands of this Court.
Subject to observations made hereinabove petition stands dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE DR