1 W.P,'}'€)43iGS¥
IN THE 13:13:»; comm' 4:312' KARNATgKA, 3 % *
DATED THIS THE 04TH DA': OIf"":-4:'éI..If'J'1'\4i';¥33.'.:fi¢f)jé€}"'
BEFORE .V.% %%%A _.
THE HONBLE IsdR.JIIS'§'ICB3:v:v:4I:fi';-x1${I.1\I{§(}}XI\;I--;:)f%A§f%DAS
WIRE'? PEYFITION :((}.M~CPQ}
BE"I'WEEN:-- _ ____ H
PTSHYLESH;s/Q'%P'v*T1Vn<gRAM%.
AGED ABOUT 33 wgaas _ *
R/A NO.2V1'5;'V"LA;LFF}{;'§' :~JI\'ms*'
Bl-I.R()AI):,_ BIRUR7. .. %
KADUR TALUK. f 1%;
CHIKMAGALUR DIS';{'RICT _
1 P ffj%.K1R.AN S] 1? V TUKARAM
' . A(}E:I3%,"AI:3'(}U'I' 34"YEARS,
A RfA 1~;o,_%2%1V5%, f'LALITHA NIVAS"
"BIRUR
~K}?2I)UR '.I.':AL'€J1{
CHIKK2%MAGALUR DISTRICT
H PUN}T'1'HA
x @1339 ABOUT 33 YEARS,
W./.f:i HAR:G0v1Nm RAG
;s§LL R/AT N0215, "LALI'FHA NIVAS"
.}3.H.ROAD, BIRUR, KADUR TALUK
CLHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT.
.., PE'§TICN.'E2}7$
(BY SR1 K S NAGARAJA RAG & ASSOCMTES}
I
2 W.P.',?G43i'{}9
AND: -
SMT AMBIKAPATHI
Asm ABOUT 57 YEARS
s/0 LATE sxr. AMBEKAR
R/AT N035, 2ND CROSS?
18'? MAIN ILANUMANTHANAGAR
BANGALORE.
SR1 A BHo0MANA1S2§T _ :
AGED A BOUT 55 YEARS, _
S/O LATE s.T,Azs4BE1<;AR.
R/AT NO.85,'_2"I? CEEOSS;
181' MAIN, ¥iANLIMAJaVFP{ANAGAR "
BANGALQf{}i§_ ._ %
SR: A ii x=1s;#iNA %
AGED AB'OUI'v?-2 1'EARS~, %
3/0 LATE S.'}'.Ai'v{BEKAi¥E
R/AT N<:w,23/ 1; K.R.F?,.O_AD,
BASAVANP.GUDI'-- J
Bg;:§a;ALoRE 4 §
Sui? é:3Aim_ % A.
NO. 1.: NA'_§"'RO}i§f3r, BASAVANAGUDI
BANiC:ALORE:';4s_ i
9 M/S BgKE%HGIJSV§.' ,' %
REPERsIs:m'ED 'BY7-.SRf.RAVINDRAN.
NQ;.1"1,N'AT RQAD,
B.5E§Afi!A:NAGUDi'''F:ANGALORE » 4,
10 'V3121 N'ARAYAN1~1
.CASS'E'«P1?E 'SHOP
NQ;I1,.N ii'RAD,
BASVANAGUDI BANGALORE 4.
'21, M/S BALAJI SINGH AND SONS FANCY STGRES
' - REPRESENTEB BY SRLSURESH SINGH.
~NQ;'1 1, NAT ROAD,
A BASVANAGUDE BANGALCIFEE 4
SWATHI TAILORS
FIRST FLOOR
QLMQV
13
14
15
.16 V
4 W.P.'?{)43f()9
REr>.BY SMT. RENUKA.
No.11 NAT Rom, BASAVANAQUDI
BANGALORE 4.
Mg-E ALKA CREATIONS V
F1 ST FLOOR % _
RERBY SR1 ASWATH1. % ' %
NG.11 NAT ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI
BANGALORE. 4. . ..
Més PRAKASH VIDEO &
F1 ST moon % -
RERBY SR1 $.f§:.NKAfr RAQ. _ %
N011 NAT;R{}Al), BASA'VANA_GU'DI~~"
BANGALO~RE{il.._...';'. " A
M/S.v'INFOR'!v£ATi{;S. u_ %
2ND FLOOR REPRESENFED BY PARTNERS
SR1 RENU2{A'}?RASAD-«.__
AND SRI"NANDA_ K:SE'1§:vR.E
No. 1.1, NA')? R;ié1NT1NG
REPRESNETED BY SRI. PANDU.
% GRQUND 191.003
;~I<:;=.~1 1 NM' ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI
BANGfiLO7RE 4.
ms mums DESIGNS TAILORS
*% Na} 3., NAT RAOD,
,§3ASVANAGUDi BANGALORE 4.
RESPONSENTS
RESPONDENTS 4 TO 37 ARE DELETED
AS PER ORDER OF THIS COURT DATED
68.04.2009.
7 W.Pf§'{)43iO9
3. Heard arguments on both the side and
Writ papers.
4. ::x.1;>2 is the will dated 1ai;n9.’:l%937 gaggle m hax=ei’eheenlk
executed l)y S.T.Ambekar. The elf’
S.T.Ambel<ar on the will ltlie"atte:sters to the
will deposed that in their his signature on
Ex.D2. Vtlielleliefendants relying 0:1
R.Sa.raswathy's of appointment of a
handwritiizg i'e;§ert iwill result in conflicting ef
versions belimfel' fhe V lherefore there is no need for
appeimzlnent of 3% {Xe-ufi C0mii:liesl~<§ifier, I decline to accept this conteaiion
vuf the le,;ltlze<i__ee11nsel fer tee-«defendants. Under See.68, 69 & 71 of the
}l:X?iLd'enee =;'\g£,v.,;i 'pfeeed:1re is laid dewn with regard to admission of a will
evitiexice. 'l'li'je_ evidence of attesting witness is not necessarily
f.}'()i'}C§l{lSlV8 proef of the will. It is always open to give other evidence to
'[_"'«re¥::i:t the "evide:2ce ef attesting witnesses or £0 digprove their evidence.
V' l–'if*.?v_fefelj,l#T% because the scribe and attesting witness t0 the will have
edeeosed that in their presence, the atitestor affixed his
signature in their presence £3 not the cenclusive presfef
I70 W.P.'?i)43fE}9
eircunzstanees, the Court has the power it} A'
disputed signature with the undisptued t ''
wider Sec 7.3 Gfthe Act". '' ' Vt '
Further learned single Judi§g.V..of
of Sri.Achyut and uzzotfzer -~vs.+:Sntt,_Nati:zTci. others
reported in JLR 2009 I{ARIV2″§§?TAICzé1VV2%’§’ under»
‘Vthe:-_ suitjiiefi ‘the..;i§Iaintij_’f is far
partitirm c:zidV».s§–e;5ti:9{;te ‘ptxséeséiefgof. the suit schedule
prGpetf°tieS;’/A ihe:”~z;§t:=..<,:e ptaintzff as also
defefidantt ' tizeet ttfiiegiizzgéerties are their ancestrat
propertiestt tyeu-eve: N03,} and 2 contend
thastt thereauis pyéorttgadttttion of the properties as per
tlzfei. partition W Ex.DI dated
» __Defenda:nt H33 in her evidence has
'V :'it;eVrVs§figtature en the said document, Whether
in dispute is the sigtuztum of defendant
V. has to be answered by an expert after
V * czatrtpfitftng the same with the admitted signature. This
"qr/terstiort has to be scientgfioally analyzed examined
considered by an emert and then, he has to give
H his opinion after sczientifioally testing the same. The
burden is an defendant N05. 1 and 2 to establish that
the disputed signature is of defendant I'Ic:.3.
1 1 W.P,'?I343.?'G§
Therefore, the Gear: befow was not righi in rejeeé$fi9,,
the appliocztionfifed by defendant N031 and 2'?
6. In View of the law declared b;5%:!’??e ‘S1iprem”eV:€..’pu?’t
and this Court, the report 01’
cenclusive evidence. The rep0ri;_u’§;f_ i1¢a1nd\§x%1*iti;j3TgVA_expeI’t is
subject to objections and -cifzyee-izfiiefiixifiation. Further it
is ebiigatory on pared? V_”t0 consider the
report cf the wwitl1 ether evidence
evaiiable ell ree{‘; :fi.._«VV_ impugned order, the trite}
Ceurt has ii-@;_%: etated compare the disputed arid
edmittegi si$1a’eu:re_V ef’ S.”I’.Ambekar by exercising its power
“:1:’1c}.e: _’:See.?f;~3 _ef…the Evidence Act is erroneous. In View of
the” between the parties, denial aed
edmieeien ‘die Signature of S.’¥’.Am}:>ekar en the dispute
VE§;,.D2 the will, the appointment of an handwriting
expegrf ie necessary’ in the facts eed cimmnetamees ef this
“eeee. After eonclueien of evicierzee on both the side and
ivhen the matter was set down for arguments, the plaintiffs
c7’\w
1.4 W.P»?(3%3J{?§r
Ordered accordingly.
dh”‘