Karnataka High Court
Lalsab Died By Lrs. 1) Peerabasha vs Hussainsab on 19 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3225
WP No. 201078 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
WRIT PETITION NO.201078 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
LALSAB DIED BY LRS.
1) PEERABASHA,
S/O LALSAB DALAWAI @ WALIKAR,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O ATHALATTI, TQ. DIST. VIJAYAPURA.
2. JAHANGIR
S/O LALSAB DALAWAI @ WALIKAR,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O ATHANI, TQ. ATHANI DIST. BELGAUM.
Digitally signed by
SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA UDAGI 3. RAJESAB
Location: HIGH
COURT OF S/O LALSAB DALAWAI @ WALIKAR,
KARNATAKA AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O ATHALATTI, TQ. DIST. VIJAYAPURA.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR KALLOOR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. HUSSAINSAB
S/O MOULASAB WALIKAR @ DALAWAI,
AGE: 77 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O ATHALATTI,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3225
WP No. 201078 of 2025
HC-KAR
TQ. DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586108.
2. MAHIBOOBSAB
S/O MOULASAB WALIKAR @ DALAWAI,
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O ATHALATTI,
TQ. DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586108.
3. HASHIMSAB
S/O DASTAGIRSAB WALIKAR @ DALAWAI,
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O ATHALATTI,
TQ. DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586108.
4. GAIBUSAB
S/O DASTAGIRSAB WALIKAR @ DALAWAI,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O ATHALATTI,
TQ. DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586108.
5. MURTUZBI
W/O BHASASAB KAANI,
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: H.H. WORK,
R/O MAMADAPUR,
TQ. DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586113.
6. BUDDIMA
W/O REHMAN GOUNDI,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: H.H. WORK
R/O BIJJARAGI,
TQ. DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586114.
7. REHAMATABI
W/O BAPUSAB DALAWAI @ WALIKAR,
AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: H.H. WORK
R/O ATHALATTI,
TQ. DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586108.
8. SIKANDAR
S/O BAPUSAB DALAWAI @ WALIKAR.
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3225
WP No. 201078 of 2025
HC-KAR
R/O ATHALATTI,
TQ. DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586108.
9. BANDENAWAZ
S/O BAPUSAB DALAWAI @ WALIKAR,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O ATHALATTI,
TQ. DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586108.
10. BANU
W/O RAJASAB MULLA,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: H.H. WORK,
R/O YALLI HADAGALI, TQ. ATHANI,
DIST. BELGAUM-591248.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A)
ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE CERTIFIED COPY
OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.02.2025 PASSED BY IV
ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JFMC VIJAYAPURA IN O.S.
NO.154/2012 AS PER ANNEXURE-J AND REJECT THE COURT
COMMISSIONERS REPORT, B) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
DIRECTING THE TRIAL COURT TO ACCEPT THE APPLICATION
DATED 27.02.2025 AS PER ANNEXURE-K OF THE PETITIONERS
U/O 16 RULE 3 READ WITH ORDER 16 RULE 7A OF CPC FOR
SUMMONING THE WITNESS.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3225
WP No. 201078 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN)
The petitioners in the instant writ petition have
challenged the impugned order dated 06.02.2025 passed
in O.S.No.154/2012 by the IV-Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC,
Vijayapura.
2. The Trial Court referred the signatures of one
Husensa Moulasa Dalvai (respondent No.1) to an
handwriting expert in respect of his signatures on a
partition deed dated 31.05.1994, vakalath dated
26.03.2012 and the bank account dated 25.01.2016.
3. The signatures of respondent No.1 on the
vakalath and the bank account are admitted. The question
to be decided is whether the alleged signature of
respondent No.1 on the sale agreement dated 31.05.1994
is genuine or not.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3225
HC-KAR
4. The Court Commissioner has submitted a
report. There is variation in the signature. The petitioners
are aggrieved by the same. It is their contention that the
agreement was executed way back in the year 1994 and
the signatures on the vakalath as well as bank account has
been executed in the year 2012 and 2016 respectively and
deliberately respondent No.1 has varied his signature on
the subsequent documents. On the said ground, it is
prayed that the Court committed an error in accepting the
Commissioner's report.
5. It is seen that subsequent to submission of the
Commissioner's report, the petitioners have filed their
objections for accepting the same. However, the Trial
Court has rejected the objections of the petitioners and
has accepted the Commissioner's report. While accepting
the Commissioner's report, the Trial Court has observed
the following:
"It is pertinent to note here itself that, the
commissioner is only a piece of evidence, judgments
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3225
HC-KAR
will not be solely on the report of the commissioner
report. The report of commissioner does not bind the
Court. It can be used for the purpose of appreciating
the evidence on record. In other words such report
is not binding on the Court, the Court is free to arrive
at its own conclusion. Such evidences are not
conclusive. Therefore, in the opinion of the Court
sending the documents once again to get the
commissioner report is not warranted in the case on
hand. The defendant of O.S.No.154/2012 has not
made out grounds to reject the commissioner
report."
6. The apprehension of the petitioners is that the
Commissioner's report should not be accepted because
respondent No.1 has deliberately signed in a different
manner on the vakalath and the bank account. As
observed by the Trial Court, Commissioner's report is not
binding on the Trial Court and it is only a piece of evidence
and the petitioners are at liberty to advance their
arguments as to why the same should not be accepted and
relied upon while submitting their main arguments.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3225
HC-KAR
7. I do not see any error in the order passed by
the Trial Court in the light of the observations made by it
as aforementioned.
8. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ
petition is hereby dismissed reserving liberty to the
petitioners to raise all contentions in respect of the
Commissioner's report in due course of proceedings before
the Trial Court.
Sd/-
(M.I.ARUN)
JUDGE
SDU
CT:SI
