Karnataka High Court
WP/1097/2020 of SRI B B KRISHNAPPA Vs SRI BABU POOJARI on 24 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010515652019 NC: 2026:KHC:52796 WP No. 1097 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.1097 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI.B.B.KRISHNAPPA S/O BABU POOJARI
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.1097 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI.B.B.KRISHNAPPA
S/O BABU POOJARI
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/O THALTHARE SHETTALLI VILLAGE
SHANTHALLI HOBLI
SOMWARPETE TALUK
KODAGU DISTRICT-571236
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI.RAMESH KUMAR R V AND LAW MENS CO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
1(A)
SRI.BABU POOJARI
S/O SRI.DHOOMA POOJARI
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
DEAD BY HIS LRS.
SMT.RATHNA
D/O LATE BABU POOJARI
W/O MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/O DODDANAHALLI VILLAGE
UMMATHURU, NIDIGERE POST
YESLURU HOBLI
SAKLESHPURA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573134
Verified
HC-KAR
1(B)
SMT.PUSHPA
D/O LATE BABU POOJARI
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
W/O NARAYAN POOJARI
R/O BANAGERI VILLAGE
MAGERI POST, HETTUR HOBLI
SAKALESHPURA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573123
2.
SRI.B.B.GANGADHAR
S/O BABU POOJARI
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/O KIBBETTA VILLAGE
SOMWARAPET TALUK
KODAGU DISTRICT-571236
3.
SRI.B.B.DEVAPPA
S/O BABU POOJARI
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
4.
SMT.YASHODHA
D/O SRI.BABU POOJARI
W/O SRI.B.V.KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEAR
RESPONDENT NOS.1, 3 AND 4 ARE
R/AT TALTHARE SHETTALLI VILLAGE
HANAGAL POST
SOMWARAPET TALUK
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.G.BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE
FOR R.3, R.4 AND ALSO FOR R.1(A & B);
R2- SERVED)
Verified
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
AT ANNEXURE-F PASSED ON I.A.NO.IX/2019 IN O.S.NO.81/2014 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT SOMWARPET AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING –B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
The captioned petition is filed by the plaintiff, calling in question the order passed on I.A.No.IX, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff seeking permission to furnish an additional list of witnesses, namely, the Sub- Registrar, Somwarpet, Kodagu District, and to lead further evidence, has been rejected by the learned Trial Judge.
2. The petitioner-plaintiff has instituted the suit seeking a declaration of title founded on a Will and consequential relief of possession. During the course of the
Verified
HC-KAR
proceedings, the petitioner filed I.A.No.IX seeking permission to revise the witness list and to examine the Sub-Registrar, Somwarpet. This Court has perused the affidavit filed in support of the said application. A bare perusal of the affidavit does not disclose any cogent or satisfactory reason as to why the petitioner seeks to examine the Sub-Registrar or as to how such examination is necessary for adjudication of the issues involved in the suit. In the absence of any such justification, the learned Trial Judge was justified in rejecting the application.
3. It is also relevant to note that, in a suit where the plaintiff seeks declaration of title on the basis of a Will, the burden lies upon the propounder of the Will to establish its due execution and attestation in accordance with the mandate contained in Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, read with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The statutory requirements for proving a Will
Verified
HC-KAR
cannot be dispensed with merely by examining the Sub- Registrar before whom the Will came to be registered.
4. The mere fact that the Will is a registered document does not dispense with the requirement of proving the Will in accordance with law. At the same time, neither Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act nor Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act mandates the examination of the Sub-Registrar for proving a Will, merely on the ground that the Will is registered. Therefore, in the absence of any specific or cogent reason warranting the examination of the Sub-Registrar, the learned Trial Judge was justified in declining the prayer made in I.A.No.IX. No ground is made out for interference with the impugned order in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Having regard to the fact that the suit is of the year 2014, the learned Trial Judge is directed to expedite the
Verified
HC-KAR
hearing of the suit and make every endeavour to dispose of the same, in accordance with law, within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE
NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16
Verified