Karnataka High Court
Sri. Jasmer Prakash vs Mrs. Radha Khosla @ Radha Prakash on 28 October, 2025
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:42990
WP No. 427 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 427 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI JASMER PRAKASH
S/O SRI SURENDRA PRAKASH
R/A NO.19, SULTANPUR ESTATE
MEHRAULL, NEW DELHI-30.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI VIJAYA KRISHNA BHAT M, ADV.)
AND:
1. MRS. RADHA KHOSLA
@ RADHA PRAKASH
D/O LATE SURENDRA PRAKASH
AGED MAJOR
R/A NO.6, FIRS DRIE CRANFORD
MIDDS, TW59 PD, ENGLAND.
Digitally 2. SRI T. SATYANARAYANA
signed by
NANDINI M S AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
Location: S/O LATE S TARASA
HIGH COURT R/A NO.B-10, 8TH E MAIN
OF
KARNATAKA 4TH BLOCK, JAYAANGAR
BENGALURU - 560 011.
3. SRI M.P. NARAYANACHAR
S/O SRI M.B. PUTTASWAMACHAR
R/A NO.1107, 38TH CROSS
11TH MAIN, 4TH T BLOCK
JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 011.
4. SRI K.T. SUBHASH
S/O SRI P.G. THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:42990
WP No. 427 of 2019
HC-KAR
5. SRI RAVI BANDI
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
S/O B.K. VENAKTESH.
NO.2 AND 5 ARE RESIDING AT
VENKATESHWARA NILAYA
NO.2103/25, 2-A RAILWAY
PARALLEL ROAD
KENGERI SATALLITE TOWN
BENGALURU - 560 060.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.C. SEETHARAMA RAO, ADV., FOR R-2;
V/O/D 03.03.2020 & 13.04.2023,
NOTICE TO R-1, R-3 TO R-5 IS D/W)
THIS WP FILED PRAYING TO-QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 30.8.2018 PASSED BY THE XXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU (CCH-36) IN O.S.NO.1696/2010 VIDE
ANNEXURE-J REJECTING I.A.NO.12 (ANNEXURE-G) AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION AS PRAYED FOR.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B
GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
1. Plaintiff is before this court in this petition filed under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to set
aside the order dated 30.08.2018 passed on IA no.2 in
O.S.No.1696/2010 by the Court of XXXV Addl. City Civil &
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
NC: 2025:KHC:42990
HC-KAR
3. O.S.No.1696/2010 has been filed by the petitioner herein
seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of his
1/3rd share in the suit schedule property and also for mesne
profits. The said suit is opposed by defendant no.3 by filing a
detailed written statement. In the said suit, IA no.12 was filed
on behalf of the petitioner under Order VI Rule 10A read with
Section 151 of CPC, with a prayer to refer his signatures found
in the disputed General Power of Attorney at Ex.D4 with his
admitted signatures found in the pleadings and vakalath in
O.S.No.1696/2010 for the purpose of examination by a
handwriting expert and to submit report. The said application
was opposed by defendant no.3 by filing objections. The Trial
Court by the order impugned dated 30.08.2018 has rejected IA
no.12 and being aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before
this Court.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the
grounds urged in the petition submits, that a bare comparison
of two signatures found in the disputed document - Ex.D4 and
the admitted signature of the petitioner would go to show that
there is a remarkable difference in the signatures. He submits
NC: 2025:KHC:42990
HC-KAR
that petitioner never executed a general power of attorney in
favour of his mother. On the basis of the fraudulent general
power of attorney - Ex.D4, petitioner's mother has executed a
sale deed in favour of defendant nos. 5 & 6 and defendant no.3
has purchased the said property subsequently from defendant
nos.5 & 6. Defendant no.3 claims right over the suit schedule
property which was initially sold by the mother of the petitioner
based on the fraudulent GPA - Ex.D4. For the purpose of proper
adjudication of the dispute, the Trial Court ought to have
granted the prayer made in the application. No hardship would
be caused to the other side. Accordingly, he prays to allow the
petition.
5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent
no.3/defendant no.3 submits that defendant no.3 has
purchased the suit schedule property from defendant nos.5 & 6
under a registered sale deed dated 30.07.1998. Defendant no.
4, who is a tenant in occupation of the suit schedule property
had setup an agreement for sale dated 05.12.1993 in the name
of defendant no.2 and had filed O.S.No.1522/1995 before the
Jurisdictional Civil Court at Bengaluru, in which the petitioner
NC: 2025:KHC:42990
HC-KAR
herein was also a party. The said suit was dismissed after
contest and the judgment and decree passed in
O.S.No.1522/1995 was confirmed by this Court in
R.F.A.No.1307/2003. He submits that challenge made to the
said judgment and decree before the Hon'ble Supreme Court
was also rejected. Defendant no.3 has initiated eviction
proceedings against defendant no.4 in HRC No.496/2004 and
an eviction order has been passed against him by this Court in
H.R.R.P.No.159/2009 on 24.06.2010. The eviction order passed
against defendant no.4 in H.R.R.P.No.159/2009 has been
confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
SLP(C).No.26519/2010, and thereafter, at the instance of
defendant no.4, the present suit is filed by the petitioner
herein. He submits that execution of the general power of
attorney by the petitioner in favour of his mother was not
disputed by the petitioner in O.S.No.1522/1995 in which he
was a party. Only for the purpose of protracting the litigation,
the present application is filed. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss
the petition.
NC: 2025:KHC:42990
HC-KAR
6. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.1696/2010 which is
filed by him before the jurisdictional Civil Court at Bengaluru
seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of his
1/3rd share in the suit schedule property. Defendant nos.1 & 2
in O.S.No.1696/2010 are the sister and mother of the plaintiff.
7. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that
suit schedule property was sold by defendant no.2 who is the
mother of the plaintiff and defendant no. 1, under a registered
sale deed in favour of defendant nos.5 & 6. Defendant no.3
herein subsequently had purchased the suit schedule property
for valid sale consideration under a registered sale deed on
30.07.1998. It appears that defendant no.4 who is a tenant in
occupation of the suit schedule property, had filed
O.S.No.1522/1995 for specific performance of the sale
agreement dated 05.12.1993 said to have been executed by
defendant no.2 in the present case in his favour. The petitioner
was also a party defendant in the said suit. Defendant no.3 who
got impleaded in the said suit contested the claim made by
defendant no.4 and ultimately the suit was dismissed on
16.07.2003 and the said judgment and decree passed in
NC: 2025:KHC:42990
HC-KAR
O.S.No.1522/1995 has attained finality. It is also relevant to
note here that defendant no.3 has initiated eviction proceedings
against the respondent no.4 by filing H.R.C.No.496/2004 and in
the revision petition which arose from the said proceedings,
this Court in H.R.R.P.No.159/2009 has directed eviction of
defendant no.4 from the suit schedule property and the said
order of eviction passed against defendant no.4 has attained
finality in the year 2010 itself. According to respondent
no.3/defendant no.3, after having suffered the order of
eviction, defendant no.4 has setup the petitioner herein to file
the present suit.
8. Be that as it may, the fact remains that execution of
general power of attorney by the petitioner in favour of his
mother who is defendant no.2 in the present suit was stated in
the pleadings in O.S.No.1522/1995 and the same was not
disputed at any point of time by the petitioner herein who was
undisputedly a party to O.S.No.1522/1995. The Trial Court
having appreciated this aspect of the matter has rightly
rejected the present application - IA no.12 filed by the
petitioner seeking to refer the said General Power of Attorney
NC: 2025:KHC:42990
HC-KAR
which is marked as Ex.D4 in the present suit, to a handwriting
expert, for the purpose of examination of his signatures found
in the said document, with his signatures found in the pleadings
and vakalath in the present suit. I do not find any illegality and
irregularity in the said order, more so when the petitioner had
not disputed his signature found in the very same document
which had come on record in O.S.No.1522/1995. Under the
circumstances, I do not find any good ground to entertain this
petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
KK
