WP/30819/2019 of SMT GANGAMMA Vs SMT PUTTA GANGAMMAA on 19 September 2026

ORAL ORDER

The captioned writ petition is filed by the plaintiffs assailing the order dated 03.06.2019 passed on I.A.No.15 in O.S.No.292/2014, whereby the learned Trial Judge has rejected the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXVI Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’), seeking scientific examination of the disputed signatures appearing on Ex.P1 by comparing the same with the admitted signatures of the plaintiffs.

2. The said application was resisted by the defendants. The learned Trial Judge, having considered the rival contentions and the material on record, including the evidence of P.W.1 and the admissions elicited in her cross-examination, has rejected the application principally on two grounds.

3. Firstly, the learned Trial Judge has taken note of the categorical admissions of P.W.1 that her father had effected a partition and that three properties had fallen to

Verified

HC-KAR

the share of Narasamma. P.W.1 has also admitted that she had signed the document and that, if the document were shown to her, she would be in a position to identify her signature. Secondly, the learned Trial Judge has noticed that the plaintiffs had not produced any contemporaneous admitted documents bearing their signatures for the purpose of comparison with the disputed signatures. It is on these grounds that the application came to be rejected.

4. This Court has considered the grounds urged in the writ petition and perused the impugned order. The suit is one for partition and separate possession. The defendants have set up a specific plea of prior partition, contending that a partition had already taken place among the plaintiffs and the defendants on 06.06.1994 and that, except defendant No.3, the plaintiffs had relinquished their respective shares upon receiving a sum of Rs.10,000/- and

Verified

HC-KAR

had also affixed their signatures to the document evidencing such partition.

5. In the backdrop of the aforesaid defence and the admissions elicited from P.W.1 in the course of cross- examination, which have been duly adverted to by the learned Trial Judge, and having regard to the fact that the application came to be filed when the suit had already reached the stage of arguments, this Court finds no infirmity in the discretion exercised by the learned Trial Judge in declining to allow the application.

6. It is also necessary to bear in mind that, in a suit for partition, the plaintiffs must initially establish their assertion that the parties constitute a joint Hindu family and that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties in which they have a subsisting share. Once the defendants set up a specific plea of prior partition, the evidentiary burden in respect of such plea would operate in accordance with law. In the present case, both parties

Verified

HC-KAR

have already adduced oral and documentary evidence and the matter had reached the stage of arguments when the application in question was filed.

7. In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court would not ordinarily interfere with an interlocutory order merely because another view is possible, unless the order suffers from patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error. On a consideration of the material placed before the Court, this Court is unable to find any such perversity or jurisdictional infirmity in the order impugned. The reasons assigned by the learned Trial Judge are based on the evidence available on record and cannot be said to be either arbitrary or unsustainable.

8. It is further relevant to note that the impugned order was passed as far back as on 03.06.2019 and the proceedings have remained stalled since then. At this stage, permitting the plaintiffs to reopen the evidentiary

Verified

HC-KAR

exercise by subjecting the signatures to scientific examination, particularly when the Trial Court has considered the admissions of P.W.1 and the absence of contemporaneous admitted signatures, would not advance the cause of expeditious adjudication of the suit.

9. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no ground warranting interference with the impugned order in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merits and stands dismissed.

The learned Trial Court shall proceed with the suit in accordance with law and endeavour to dispose of the same expeditiously.

(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

Verified