[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt Trupti Rohini vs Smt Saraswathamma on 6 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:18408
WP No. 33576 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 33576 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT TRUPTI ROHINI
W/O DR. B.J. DHARANISH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.52, COUTHURST ROAD,
BLACKHEATH, LONDON SE3 8TW.
ALSO AVAILABLE AT
NO. 148, 5TH CROSS,
BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE,
3RD PHASE, 6TH BLOCK,
BENGALURU 560 085.
Digitally REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER,
signed by
VINUTHA B S SRI. H. JAVAREGOWDA S/O. HONNEGOWDA AGED
Location: ABOUT 77 YEARS, NO. 148, 5TH CROSS,
High Court of
Karnataka BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE,
3RD PHASE, 6TH BLOCK,
BENGALURU 560 085.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT.ANANYA K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.DHANANJAY K.V.,
ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:18408
WP No. 33576 of 2025
HC-KAR
AND:
1. SMT SARASWATHAMMA
W/O. LATE. BOREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 91 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 3571,
1-H CROSS, BEHIND GIRINAGAR
POLICE STATION, BANASHANKARI
3RD STAGE, GIRINAGAR,
BENGALURU 560 085.
2. SRI. M.D. DIVAKAR
S/O. LATE. BOREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
RESIDING AT VILLA NO. 3,
TRINETRA,
BEHIND RENAISSANCE
PROSPERO,BELLARY ROAD, KASHINAGAR,
BYATARANPURA,
BENGALURU 560 092.
3. SRI. TRISHUL BHARANI
S/O. M.D. DIVAKAR
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESIDING AT VILLA NO. 3,
TRINETRA, BEHIND RENAISSANCE
PROSPERO,BELLARY ROAD, KASHINAGAR,
BYATARANPURA,
BENGALURU 560 092.
4. SMT. TEJASVI POORVA
D/O. M.D. DIVAKAR
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
RESIDING AT VILLA NO. 3,
TRINETRA,
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:18408
WP No. 33576 of 2025
HC-KAR
BEHIND RENAISSANCE
PROSPERO,
BELLARY ROAD, KASHINAGAR,
BYATARANPURA,
BENGALURU 560 092.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04-SEP-2025 PASSED ON I.A.
NO. III (AT ANNEXURE-H PAGE NOS. 69-74)B.
CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW THE I.A. NO. III FILED BY THE
PETITIONER UNDER ORDER XI RULE 12 AND 14 OF THE CODE
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, IN O.S. NO. 7963 OF 2022
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-15) AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition
challenging the order dated 04.09.2025 on I.A.No.III in
O.S.No.7963/2022 on the file of the Court of VIII
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru
NC: 2026:KHC:18408
HC-KAR
wherein the application filed under Order XI Rules 12 and
14 read with Section 151 of CPC, has been rejected.
2. The petitioner herein instituted
O.S.No.7963/2022 against the respondents seeking relief
of partition of suit schedule properties.
3. The respondents filed written statement
denying the petition averments. It is also contended that
Item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule 'A' property were
barren lands, no source of water and no income have been
generated as the said lands were not fit for cultivation.
4. The plaintiff in the application filed under Order
XI Rules 12 and 14 prayed to direct the defendants to
declare on oath, by way of an affidavit, the production of
documents relating to the documents specified in the
affidavit. The documents prayed to be produced by
defendant No.1 are Bank Records, Income Tax Records,
Business Records and Financial Ledgers. The documents
sought to be produced by defendant No.2 are Income and
NC: 2026:KHC:18408
HC-KAR
Wealth Records, Banking and Financial Records, Property
and Asset Transaction Records and Corporate and
Business Records. The documents sought to be produced
by defendant No.3 are Employment Records, Income Tax
Records, Bank Records and Gift Records. The documents
sought to be produced by defendant No.4 are Income Tax
Records for 7 years, complete Bank Statements for 7
years, copies of all registered sale deeds for any
immovable property acquired by her and registration
certificate for any motor vehicles acquired by her since
2010.
5. The trial Court considering the nature of the
suit and the burden to be discharged by the plaintiff,
rejected the application.
6. Smt. Ananya K., learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner submits that the plaintiff has not been
residing in India for the past 20 years. It is submitted that
the properties subject matter of the partition suit are
NC: 2026:KHC:18408
HC-KAR
acquired from the sources generated from the ancestral
properties and hence, all the properties would constitute
joint family properties.
7. It is submitted that unless the defendants
establish or prove the source of income is not from the
ancestral properties, the same are required to be
considered as joint family properties. To prove and
establish such contention, the documents requested in the
application are relevant. Hence, she submits that the trial
Court committed an error in not entertaining the
application.
8. Considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner.
9. The suit is for partition. It is pleaded that the
suit schedule items are joint family properties and the
plaintiff is entitled to 1/5th share. It appears that Item
Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties are admitted
to be the ancestral properties. The petitioner is claiming
NC: 2026:KHC:18408
HC-KAR
share in schedule 'B' property on the ground that schedule
'B' property is acquired from the source generated from
schedule 'A' property. The said contention has been flatly
denied by the defendants by contending that the schedule
'A' property is not suitable for cultivation and no
cultivation has taken place.
10. The trial Court further held that the initial
burden is on the person who claims the properties as joint
family or ancestral properties. It is held that unless the
initial burden is discharged, the burden cannot be shifted
on the defendants. It is also held that to discharge the
initial burden, the application at this stage cannot be
entertained. It is held that even if the defendants failed to
establish an independent financial source to purchase the
property, unless the initial burden is discharged by the
petitioner, the same would not prove the case of the
plaintiff.
NC: 2026:KHC:18408
HC-KAR
11. The trial Court after recording the above finding
rejected the application.
12. This Court on consideration of the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as also
considering the reasons assigned by the trial Court and the
legal position considered by the trial Court is not inclined
to entertain this petition. The finding recorded by the trial
Court is based on the settled legal position. If application
is allowed at this stage, it would amount to directing the
defendants to provide evidence to prove the plaintiff's
case. Burden is on the plaintiff to prove her case. The
present petition is devoid of merits and accordingly
rejected.
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
KTY/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2
