[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Eramma vs Sri. M.Y. Muniraju on 25 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:17371
W.P. No.6388/2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO.6388/2020 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. ERAMMA
AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS
DECEASED REP. BY LR'S.
1(a) MADDURAPPA
Digitally signed
by ARSHIFA S/O LATE KAKAPPA AND
BAHAR KHANAM LATE EERAMMA
Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
COURT OF R/AT. BEGIHALLI, JIGANI HOBLI
KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560105.
1(b) YALLAMMA
D/O LATE KAKAPPA AND
LATE ERAMMA
W/O KRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT. NO.40, 12TH CROSS
BANNERGHATTA ROAD
PILLAGANAHALLI
BENGALURU SOUTH-560083.
1(c) VENKATALAKSHMAMMA
D/O LATE KAKAPPA AND
LATE ERAMMA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT. KOPPA GATE, JIGANI HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DIST-560105.
1(d) YALLAMMA
D/O LATE KAKAPPA AND
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:17371
W.P. No.6388/2020
HC-KAR
LATE ERAMMA
W/O RAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT. NO.45, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
1(e) RENUKA
D/O LATE KAKAPPA AND
LATE ERAMMA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT. KOPPA GATE, JIGANI HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
REP. THEIR GPA HOLDER OF LR'S
FROM 1(a) TO (e)
RAMU
S/O THANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT. BILEKAHALLI, 5TH CROSS
BEGUR HOBLI, BENNERGHATTA ROAD
BENGALURU-560076.
2. SRI. NAGARAJU @ BANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
S/O LATE MARIHUCHAPPA
R/AT NO. NANJAPURA VILLAGE
JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
BENGLAURU URBAN DISTRICT-562106.
3. SMT. GOWRAMMA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
D/O LATE MARIHUCHAPPA
R/AT ANANTHANAGARA
HUSKUR GATE, ATTIBELE HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
4. HOSANNA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:17371
W.P. No.6388/2020
HC-KAR
S/O LATE MARIHUCHAPPA
R/AT NO.NANJAPURA VILLAGE
JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 562106.
5. VEERABHADRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
S/O LATE MARIHUCHAPPA
R/AT NO.NANJAPURA VILLAGE
JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562106.
6. SMT. SHANTHAMMA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
D/O LATE MARIHUCHAPPA
R/AT NO.KUMBARANAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562106.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. K. NARASIMHA MURTHY, ADV., FOR
SRI. PRASHANTH M.M. ADV., FOR LR'S OF DECEASED
PETITIONER IN IA 1/2021)
AND:
1. SRI. M.Y. MUNIRAJU
S/O LATE YALLAPPA
R/AT. SIDIHOSKOTE VILLAGE
JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560105.
2. SMT. AMMAYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
W/O LATE MUNIVENKATA REDDY
R/AT NO.NANJAPURA VILLAGE
JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562106.
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:17371
W.P. No.6388/2020
HC-KAR
3. MUNI REDDY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
S/O LATE MUNIVENKATA REDDY
R/AT NO.NANJAPURA VILLAGE
JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562106.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NAGA REDDY V, ADV., FOR R1
NOTICE TO R3 D/W R3 TREATED AS LR'S OF DECEASED R2)
---
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS, OS.NO.466/2012 PENDING BEFORE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AT ANEKAL, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. QUASH
THE ORDER DT 01.02.2020 PASSED ON THE APPLICATION
FILED U/S 90 OF EVIDENCE ACT IN O.S.NO.466/2012 PENDING
BEFORE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANEKAL, BENGALURU RURAL
DISTRICT IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE
APPLICATION FILED BY PETITIONERS U/S 90 OF EVIDENCE
ACT & 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
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed challenging the order dated
01.02.2020 passed in O.S.No.466/2012 by the Senior Civil
Judge, Anekal, Bengaluru Rural District (for short, 'the
Trial Court').
NC: 2026:KHC:17371
HC-KAR
2. Sri.K.Narasimha Murthy, learned counsel for
Sri.Prashanth M.M., learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner No.1 is the defendant No.1 in a
suit filed by the respondent No.1-plaintiff for issuance of
probate and in the said suit, the defendant No.1 filed an
application under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 (for short, 'the Evidence
Act'), and sought to mark the original deed of usufructuary
mortgage dated 01.04.1938 which came to be rejected by
the Trial Court solely on the ground that the said
document is unregistered. It is submitted that the
application filed by the defendant No.1 indicates that the
defendant No.1 is in possession of the property in question
and to prove the possession, the said document ought to
have been accepted as the same would fall within the
proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for
short, 'the Registration Act'). Hence, he seeks to allow the
petition.
NC: 2026:KHC:17371
HC-KAR
3. Per contra, Sri.Nagareddy V, learned counsel
for the respondent No.1-plaintiff supports the impugned
order of the Trial Court and the very filing of the
application under Section 90 of the Evidence Act is
defective as the petitioner is required to produce the said
document along with proper application seeking for
marking and then can seek for consideration as a 30 year
old document. It is submitted that admittedly, the alleged
document of usufructuary mortgage is unregistered which
is required to be registered under Section 17 of the
Registration Act and the Trial Court was fully justified in
rejecting the application. Lastly, he submits that the
written statement of the petitioner indicates that they are
claiming their title based on such instrument and if such
an application is allowed and the document is ordered to
be accepted and marked in evidence, it would be contrary
to Section 49 of the Registration Act. Hence, he seeks to
dismiss the petition.
NC: 2026:KHC:17371
HC-KAR
4. At this stage, it is submitted at the Bar that the
arguments in the suit is concluded and the matter is
posted for judgment. In view of the aforesaid statement
and considering the stage of the proceedings before the
Trial Court, I am of the considered view that it would not
be appropriate to exercise the power under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India which is discretionary and
equitable. It is open for the petitioner to raise the
aforesaid ground in the appeal in the event the Trial Court
decrees the suit.
5. With the above observation, the writ petition is
disposed of.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
RV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18
