[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt H.Dakshayini vs Smt. Indramma on 15 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:20928
W.P. No.29026/2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO.29026/2019 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. H. DAKSHAYINI
WIFE OF SRI. VISHAKANTA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT. CARE OF SRI. B. NAGARAJA
NO.134/3, 1ST FLOOR
BULL TEMPLE ROAD
Digitally signed CHAMARAJPET
by RUPA V BANGALORE-560 018.
Location: HIGH
ALSO AT: R K 11
COURT OF
KARNATAKA LLYODS ESTATE
LLOYDS ROAD
ROYAPETTAH
CHENNAI-600 014.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. G.B. MANJUNATH, ADV.,)
AND:
1. SMT. INDRAMMA
WIFE OF SRI. K. HONNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.267
15TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN ROAD
WILSON GARDEN
BANGALORE-560 030.
2. SMT. H. DEVIKA
DAUGHTER OF SRI. K. HONNAPPA
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:20928
W.P. No.29026/2019
HC-KAR
WIFE OF SRI NAGARAJA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
GAYATHRI JEWELLARS
N H 206, B H ROAD
GUBBI-572216
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
3. H. KUMAR
SON OF SRI. K. HONNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
4. H. MANJUNATH
SON OF SRI. K. HONNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
THIRD AND FOURTH RESPONDENTS
RESIDING AT NO.267
15TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN ROAD
WILSON GARDEN
BANGALORE-560 030.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. G. CHANDRAKALA, ADV., FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS OF O.S.NO.6270/2008 IN THE COURT OF THE
XXXVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-39). SET
ASIDE THE ORDER ON I.A.NOS.13 TO 15 DATED APRIL 15,
2019, PASSED IN O.S.NO.6270/2008 IN THE COURT OF THE
XXXVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH 39)
UNDER ANNEXURE-P & ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:20928
W.P. No.29026/2019
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed challenging the order dated
15.04.2019 passed on I.A.Nos.13 to 15 in
O.S.No.6270/2008 by the XXXVIII Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for short 'the Trial Court').
2. Sri.G.B.Manjunath, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a suit for
partition and permanent injunction. In the said suit, after
recording of the evidence, the petitioner filed an
application in I.A.No.12 to issue summons to the
Administrator / Chief Medical Officer, Sindhi Hospital,
Bengaluru, to produce the case history, discharge
summary, etc., which came to be rejected. Hence, the
plaintiff has filed I.A.No.13 to re-open the case, I.A.No.14
to permit the plaintiff to lead rebuttal evidence and
I.A.No.15 to re-call the order dated 09.03.2015 passed by
the Trial Court. These applications came to be rejected by
the Trial Court under the impugned order on the ground
that the matter is posted for final arguments. It is
NC: 2026:KHC:20928
HC-KAR
submitted that the rebuttal evidence of the plaintiff is
necessary as the plaintiff has specifically pleaded that
Sri.K.Honnappa, wife of defendant No.1 and father of
defendant Nos.2 to 4 was not in a good state of mind to
execute the gift deed dated 04.05.2006 in favour of the
defendant No.4. The said aspect is required to be adduced
in the evidence which has not been properly considered by
the Trial Court. In support of his contentions, he placed
reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of K.K. VELUSAMI Vs. N. PALANISAMI1.
Hence, he seeks to allow the petition.
3. Per contra, Smt.G.Chandrakala, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents supports the impugned
order of the Trial Court and submits that the petitioner has
filed the suit way back in the year 2008 and she has
adduced the evidence in the matter. The said witness has
been cross-examined. The defendants have adduced the
evidence and the matter is posted for arguments. At this
(2011) 11 SCC 275
NC: 2026:KHC:20928
HC-KAR
stage, the applications are filed to re-open the case, to
permit the plaintiff to adduce further evidence and to re-
call the order dated 09.03.2015, which is impermissible.
Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition.
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the
respondents and meticulously perused the material
available on record.
5. The petitioner has filed O.S.No.6270/2008 for
the relief of partition and permanent injunction. In the
said suit, the respondents have filed a detailed written
statement denying the plaint averments. The Trial Court
framed the issues viz. issue Nos.1 to 8. The parties to the
proceedings have adduced the evidence and the matter
was posted for arguments. At this stage, the plaintiff has
filed applications in I.A.Nos.13 to 15 to re-open the case,
to permit the plaintiff to lead rebuttal evidence on issue
Nos.3 to 5 and to re-call the order dated 09.03.2015. A
NC: 2026:KHC:20928
HC-KAR
perusal of issue Nos.3 to 5 indicate that the issues pertain
to the registered gift deed dated 04.05.2006 executed by
Sri.K.Honnappa in favour of the defendant No4. The said
issues were framed as on 06.09.2013 and thereafter, the
plaintiff examined herself as PW-1. PW-1 was cross-
examined by the defendants. The defendants adduced the
evidence and the matter was posted for arguments. It is
to be noticed that the plaintiff has filed I.A.No.12 seeking
to summon the Medical Officer of the Sindhi Hospital,
Bengaluru, and also sought a prayer to produce the case
history, discharge summary, all diagnosis, post mortem
report and the entire case file of Sri.K.Honnappa. The
contention of the plaintiff is that the said Honnappa was
not in a good state of mind on the date of execution of the
gift deed. The material available on record indicates that
the death of Honnappa was much prior to adducing of the
evidence and the said application in I.A.No.12 was
rejected by the Trial Court which has attained finality. A
perusal of the present applications filed by the petitioner in
NC: 2026:KHC:20928
HC-KAR
I.A.Nos.13 to 15 does not indicate the necessity to adduce
further evidence or rebuttal evidence by PW-1. The
grounds in the said applications are bereft of details. The
Trial Court, taking note of the fact that the trial was
concluded and already sufficient opportunity was provided
to the plaintiff to adduce evidence, proceeded to reject the
applications. I do not find any error in the order passed
by the Trial Court.
6. With regard to the decision relied on by the
learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of
K.VELUSAMI, referred supra, the said decision is the
enunciation of law on the power of the Courts under
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for
short, 'the CPC'). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has
considered that Order XVIII Rule 17A of the CPC was
deleted. However, such a power is always available to the
Trial Court under Section 151 of the CPC to be exercised.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has remanded the matter back
to the Trial Court as in the said case, the plaintiff had
NC: 2026:KHC:20928
HC-KAR
placed sufficient evidence which he could not produce at
the time of his evidence. On the said ground, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has remanded the matter back to the Trial
Court with a direction to consider the application afresh.
7. In the case on hand, a perusal of the
application does not indicate as to why the plaintiff intends
to adduce further evidence / rebuttal evidence. A perusal
of the affidavit only indicates that the gift deed is
suspicious and the Sri.K.Honnappa was not in a good state
of mind to execute the said gift deed. The said fact was
well within the knowledge of the plaintiff when she had
adduced the evidence on issue Nos.3 to 5.
8. For the aforementioned reasons, I am of the
considered view that the writ petition is devoid of merits
and the same is accordingly rejected.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
RV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14
