[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt.M.Lakshmamma vs Sri M.Rajanna, Dead By His Lrs., ... on 17 February, 2026
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:9694
WP No. 36671 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 36671 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT.M.LAKSHMAMMA,
WIFE OF LATE GANGAIAH,
SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS.,
1. SRI CHANDRASHEKAR.G.,
S/O LATE GANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
NO.5/1, 3RD 'A' MAIN ROAD,
A.D.HALLI, MAGADI ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 079.
2. SMT. HEMALATHA.G
W/O K. CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT SUBBARAJU ROAD
BANASWADI ROAD
MARUTHISEVANAGAR
Digitally BANGALORE 560 033.
signed by
CHANDANA 3. SMT. MANJULA.G W/O SHAMANNA,
BM
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
Location: RESIDING AT NO.3, 14TH CROSS,
High Court of
Karnataka CHINNAYANAPALYA, ADUGODI,
BANGALORE-560 030.
4. SMT. VIJAYA.G.
W/O SHIVAPRASAD,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.50/1, 7TH CROSS,
KODHANDARAMPURA, VYALIKAVAL,
BENGALURU-560 003.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SAGAR B B.,ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:9694
WP No. 36671 of 2025
HC-KAR
AND:
SRI M.RAJANNA,
DEAD BY HIS LRS.,
1. SRI.LOKESH R.,
S/O LATE RAJANNA.M.,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
NO.5, 3RD A MAIN ROAD,
AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI,
MAGADI ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 079.
2. SRI. DHARMESH.R.,
S/O LATE RAJANNA.M.,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT
M.F.A. PENDING BRANCH
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-560 001.
3. SMT.LAKSHMI
D/O LATE RAJANNA M
W/O KRISHNA MURTHY. T.,
(WORKING AT BHEL)
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/O NO. 85, 2ND CROSS, 7TH MAIN
SUBHASH NAGAR,
NEAR HOYSALA CIRCLE,
KENGERI,
BANGALORE-560 060.
4. SMT. VASANTHA
W/O LATE RAJANNA M,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT NO.E-15, NGOS QUARTERS,
12TH C MAIN, RAJAJINAGAR 6TH BLOCK
BANGALORE-560 010.
5. SRI. MANJUNATH R
S/O LATE RAJANNA M
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT NO.E-15, NGOS QUARTERS,
12TH C MAIN RAJAJINAGAR 6TH BLOCK
BANGALORE-560 010.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:9694
WP No. 36671 of 2025
HC-KAR
M.BATHILINGAPPA,
DEAD BY HIS LRS.,
6. SMT.AKKAYAMMA
W/O LATE BATHILINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
NO.5, 3RD A MAIN ROAD,
AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI,
MAGADI ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 079.
7. HARISH,
SON OF BATHI LINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
NO.5, 3RD A MAIN ROAD,
AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI,
MAGADI ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 079.
8. B.MANJULA,
DAUGHTER OF BATHI LINGAPPA,
WIFE OF NAGESH,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
9. PAVITHRA,
DAUGHTER OF BATHI LINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R-8 & R-9 ARE RESIDING AT NO.3, 9TH B CROSS,
C/O. ANNAYAPPA,
AGRAAHARA DASARAHALLI,
MAGADI ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 079.
10. VARALAKSHMI,
DAUGHTER OF BATHI LINGAPPA,
WIFE OF RAMNAJEENI,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.39, 2ND CROSS,
BETTANARAYANASWAMY NILAYA,
A.D.HALLI, BANGALORE - 560 079.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.S. VENKAT SUBBARAI, ADVOCATE FOR R-6 TO R-10)
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:9694
WP No. 36671 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION
OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
13.10.2025 PASSED ON I.A. NO 18 IN O.S.NO.8829/2014 PASSED BY THE
HONORABLE XXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
BANGALORE (CCH-30) VIDE ANNEXURE E IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
This petition by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.8829/2014 on the file
of XXIX Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, is directed
against the impugned order dated 13.10.2025 passed on I.A.No.18,
whereby the said application filed by the respondents 6 to 10 -
defendants 2 to 6 for permission to produce the document styled as
'Deed of Settlement' dated 25.02.1999 and to mark the same for
collateral purpose was allowed by the trial court, which upheld the
admissibility of the said document.
2. Heard leaned counsel for the petitioners and learned
counsel for respondents 6 to 10 and perused the material on
record.
NC: 2026:KHC:9694
HC-KAR
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that having
regard to the recitals and covenants contained in the said
document, the trial court fell in error in failing to appreciate that the
document was compulsorily registerable and was insufficiently
stamped and the impugned order of the trial court that the said
document was a registered document and admissible in evidence,
deserves to be set aside.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents 6 to 10 would
support the impugned order and submits that there is no merit in
the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
5. Though several contentions have been urged by both
sides in support of their respective claims, having regard to the
undisputed fact that the said document has already been marked in
the evidence of DW-1 and the matter is posted for cross-
examination of DW-, without expressing any opinion on the merits /
demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to
dispose of this petition by modifying the impugned order and by
directing that all questions / issues pertaining to admissibility, proof,
relevance, probative value etc., of the document styled as 'Deed of
NC: 2026:KHC:9694
HC-KAR
Settlement' dated 25.02.1999 are left open to be decided by the
trial court at the time of final disposal of the suit.
6. Subject to the aforesaid directions, petition stands
disposed of. However, the trial court is directed to dispose of the
suit on or before 30.04.2026.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
Srl.
