Karnataka High Court
WP/14422/2026 of SMT. PUTTAMMA Vs SRI. PADMANABHAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LRS on 6 August 2026
CNR: KAHC010308162026 NC: 2026:KHC:41904 WP No. 14422 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 14422 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. PUTTAMMA W/O LATE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION NO. 14422 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
SMT. PUTTAMMA
W/O LATE THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS,
R/AT HELENIJAGAL,
SOMPURA-HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA-TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 571 430
2.
SRI. N.T. SRINIVASAMURTHY
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/AT HELENIJAGAL, SOMPURA-HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA-TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 571 430
3.
SMT. LAKSHMIDEVI
D/O LATE THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT HARASHINAKUNTE (THOTA),
NELAMANGALA-TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123
SRI.GOVINDARAJU S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S
Digitally signed
by SUVARNA T
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
4.
SMT. GANGATHIMMAKKA
W/O LATE GOVINDARAJU
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
5.
SRI VASUDEVA
S/O LATE GOVINDARAJU
AGED 28 YEARS
R/AT HELENIJAGAL, SOMPURA-HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA-TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 571 430
6.
SRI. N.T. KRISHNAMURTHY
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
LIBRARIAN, GOVT ART COLLEGE,
B.H. ROAD,
TUMKUR - 572 120
7.
SMT. NAGAMMA
W/O GOPI
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT ANJINAPPA BUILDING,
SHANIMAHATHMA TEMPLE.
BEHIND ARISHINAKUNTE,
NELAMANGALA-TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. B.M. LOKESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SRI. PADMANABHAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LRS
SMT. KAMALAKSHMI
W/O VEEREGOWDA,
HC-KAR
D/O LATE PADMANABHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
2.
SMT. CHAITRA
D/O LATE PADMANABHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/AT LAKKENAHALLI-VILLAGE,
DASANAPURA-HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 562 162
3.
SMT. NARASMMA W/O GANGARAJU
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
GANGARAJU
HUSBAND OF LATE NARASAMMA
S/O LATE VEERAKEMPEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
R/AT KARADA BEEDI,
TAVAREKERE-VILLAGE AND POST
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK - 562 130
4.
SRI NARASIMHAMURTHY.T.G
S/O LATE NARASAMA,
T.V. GANGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT KARADA BEEDI,
TAVAREKERE-VILLAGE AND POST
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK - 562 130
5.
SMT. SUMITRA
D/O LATE NARASAMMA
W/O K.V. PARTHA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT SAVERA TOWNSHIP,
GANESHA TEMPLE, SONDEKOPPA-ROAD,
HC-KAR
NELAMANGALA,
BENGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123
6.
SMT. VENKATAMMA
W/O GANGABYRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
VADAKUNTE, DODDABELE-POST,
NELAMANGALA-TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 132
7.
SRI GOVINDRAJU SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
SMT. JAYASHREE
D/O LATE GOVINDRAJU
W/O CHIKKANNA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT LAKSHMIPURA-VILLAGE,
DASANAPURA-HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 562 162
8.
SMT. SOWMYASHREE
D/O LATE GOVINDRAJU
W/O MANJUNATH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT MARATHALLI -VILLAGE,
DASANAPURA-HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 562 162
9.
SMT. SREELAKSHMI
D/O LATE GOVINDRAJU
W/O NARASIMHARAJU
S/O NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT BELALU-VILLAGE,
DODDAHALADAMARA ROAD,
HC-KAR
TAVAREKERE-HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK - 562 130
10.
SMT. SOWBHAGYA
W/O RAMANNA(POLICE)
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT MALLATHALLI-VILLAGE,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 560 037
11.
SMT. SUVRANAMMA
W/O ASHWATHA @ CHIKKABYRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT VADAKUNTE, DODDABELE-POST,
NELAMANGALA-TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 162
…RESPONDENTS
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DTD. 28.03.2026 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, AT NELAMANGALA IN O.S.NO. 1533/2009 AT
ANNX-E.
THIS
PETITION,
COMING
ON
FOR
PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
HC-KAR
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.
ORAL ORDER
Aggrieved by the order passed on I.A.No.21 in O.S. No.1533/2009 dated 28.03.2026 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Nelamangala, the petitioners/defendants are before this Court.
2. The respondents herein, who are the plaintiffs, have filed a suit for partition. In the said suit, defendant Nos.1, 3, 4, 6(a), 6(e), 9 and 10 filed I.A.No.21 under Order XXVI Rule 10A read with Section 151 of the CPC, seeking directions to plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 to undergo a DNA test by referring the matter to any Government agency having the facility for conducting DNA tests. The said application was dismissed by the impugned order.
3. The Trial Court has observed that the defendants are seeking to establish that the said Kamalakshi and Chaitra are not the children of the deceased Padmanabaiah by procuring a DNA test. The Trial Court must carefully examine the consequences of ordering a DNA test. If the test comes back positive, the children of the deceased plaintiff may be
HC-KAR
declared to have a relationship with the deceased Padmanabaiah and be considered his children. If the test comes back negative, there may be a cascading effect on the individuality and status of the plaintiffs. DNA testing is not to be directed as a matter of routine, and only in deserving cases can such a direction be given. Further, in the present case, apart from the DNA test, the Court can take other documents into the aid of the Court. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, apart from directing a DNA test, the Court can consider other materials to determine whether the said Kamalakshi and Chaitra are the children of the deceased Padmanabaiah. At this stage, the Court cannot initiate a DNA test as requested by the defendants.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants submits that, if the DNA test is conducted, as it is a scientific method of determining facts, it would be easier for the Court to decide the dispute between the parties. However, the Trial Court, without considering the same, has dismissed the application.
HC-KAR
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, perused the impugned order. It is seen that the trial Court, at paragraph No.13 of the impugned order, which has already been recited in the preceding paragraphs, has rightly considered the matter and passed the order. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
7. In view of the above discussions, this Court is passing the following:
ORDER
i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
ii. Pending IAs, if any, shall stand closed.
Sd/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE
SMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8