Karnataka High Court
Sri Narasimha Hegde vs Mr M V Kiran on 29 January, 2026
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:5140
WP No. 1245 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.1245 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. MR M V KIRAN
S/O M.P. VIJAY KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
2. MR. M.V. TARUN KUMAR
S/O M.P. VIJAY KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT RATHNAGIRI ESTATE
MUTTIL HOUSE, WAYANAD DISTRICT
KERALA STATE-673122.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed AND:
by CHANDANA
BM
Location: High
Court of 1. NARASIMHA HEGDE
Karnataka S/O RAMA HEGDE
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
MAIN ROAD, NEAR ARUNA TALKIS
PUTTURKASABE VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK
DAKSHINA KANNADA-574230
2. K. VENKATARAMANA HEGDE
S/O RAMA HEGDE
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
R/AT SHRI RAMANA HOUSE
UMABHAG D.NO.1-17-1254/5
M.D.D. LANE, CHILIMBI, MANGALORE
DAKSHINA KANNADA-575004
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:5140
WP No. 1245 of 2026
HC-KAR
3. DAMODHARA HEGDE
S/O RAMA HEGDE
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
MAIN ROAD, NEAR ARUNA TALKIS
PUTTURKASABE VILLAGE PUTTUR TALUK
DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574230
4. SMT. AMITHA HEGDE
W/O K. MANJUNATHA HEGDE
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
MAIN ROAD, NEAR ARUNATALKIS
PUTTUR KASABE VILLAGE PUTTUR TALUK
DAKSHINA KANNADA-574230.
5. WILLIAM D SOUZA
S/O ANTHONI DISOUZA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
SOUZA INDUSTRIES CORPORATION PUTTUR
KASABA VILLAGE PUTTUR TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA-575004.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G. RAVI SHANKAR SHASTRY, ADV FOR C/R1 TO R4)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 16.12.2025 ON IA NO.10 IN OS
37/2017 ON THE FILE OF 1ST ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC AT PUTTUR, D.K, AS PER ANNX-A, AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE IA NO.10 AS PRAYED FOR IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDER, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:5140
WP No. 1245 of 2026
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
This petition by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.37/2017 on the file of the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Puttur, D.K., is directed against the impugned order passed on I.A.No.10 whereby the said application filed by the petitioners - plaintiffs under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC to appoint a Court Commissioner to conduct local inspection of the suit schedule property was rejected by the Trial Court.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioners-plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondents-defendants for declaration, possession and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule property. The said suit having been contested by the respondents-defendants, both sides adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claims and the matter was posted for final arguments, at which stage the petitioners-plaintiffs filed the instant application -4- NC: 2026:KHC:5140 WP No. 1245 of 2026 HC-KAR seeking appointment of a Court Commissioner to conduct local inspection of the suit schedule property. The said application having been opposed by the respondents-defendants, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the application on the ground it is not necessary or essential to appoint a Court Commissioner. In this context, the Trial Court failed to consider and appreciate the specific defence put forth by the defendants in their written statement wherein they have specifically denied and disputed the identity, boundaries, extent, location of the plaint 'A' schedule property. In fact, the averments made by the respondents-defendants at paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 are as under:
"7. The suit is not properly valued. It is undervalued. The C.F. paid is deficit. Advolerum C.F. has to be paid on the actual market value of the immovable property whose possession is baselessly sought.
8. The alleged plaint 'A' schedule property cannot be identified at the spot. The exact boundaries of it are also not described in the plaint. On this ground also, the suit is liable to be dismissed. Any authentic and clear-cut sketch or public map is not produced by the -5- NC: 2026:KHC:5140 WP No. 1245 of 2026 HC-KAR plaintiffs to identify, or to disclose the boundaries of the plaint 'A' schedule alleged property.
9. This defendant along with his two brothers and sister in law have been in khas lawful possession and enjoyment of the 1-00 acre of immovable property situated in Kabaka Village, Puttur Tq.,D.K., comprised in S.No.185/1C3B which they have purchased from one Mr.William D'souza. That Mr.William D'Souza had purchased it earlier from one Mr.A.K.Jayaraj Hegde, through a Regtd. Sale Deed dt: 07-01-1981. That Mr.A.K.Jayarag Hegde, being 5th defendant in O.S.28/1966 had obtained valid title over 1-06 acres of property(shown in sketch annexed to that Compromise Decree also), as per Compromise Decree dt: 9.11.1967 passed in the O.S.28/1966, including this 1-00 acres of property which he later sold to Mr. Willaim D'Souza, as stated supra.
10. In the above back drop, it is submitted that without being clear about boundaries, extent, location etc of plaint 'A' schedule alleged property, false ill- motivated and greedy suit is filed as a 'hit or miss' tactic.
11. Without prejudice to above contentions, it is submitted that the suit is not properly framed. It is bad for want of declaratory relief, etc. -6- NC: 2026:KHC:5140 WP No. 1245 of 2026 HC-KAR
4. So also, the averments in para 7 of the additional written statement is as under:
"7. The plaintiff cannot take undue advantage of any Eye-Sketch. The sketch annexed to Compromise Decree of O.S.No.28/1966 was only a rough Eye- sketch and not an accurate sketch like plotting sketch or F.M.B Sketch. Even in that sketch, western portion was allotted to A.K Jayaraj Hegde and eastern portion (1-06 acre) was allotted to plaintiff's mother A.K.Lalitha Kumari and Kala. The authentic F.M.B. sketches make it absolutely clear that the alleged 1-06 acre property of the plaintiff in S.No. 185/1C3B(P) lies to the east of the 1st to 4th defendants' 1-00 acre property in S.No.185/1C3A which they purchased under Regtd.Sale Deed dt: 04-09-2008. The C.C. of FMB sketches are produced. It is the settled principle that the accurate sketch made after accurate survey measurement/survey settlement/ plotting / F.M.B. sketch being unaltered and undisturbed under law, prevails over all earlier sketches. Unfortunately, the greedy plaintiff is misleading and bamboozling the whole matter to fix his alleged 1-06 acre (in which prima facie many third persons were in possession and occupation since many years) to 1* and 4th defendants' 1-00 acre, upon giving deliberate false and misleading boundaries under plaint 'A' schedule. The afterthought -7- NC: 2026:KHC:5140 WP No. 1245 of 2026 HC-KAR idea is to knock off the Is and 4* defendants' 1-00 acre plot, since the plaintiff has prima facie already lost portions of his alleged 1-06 acre eastern side plot to many third persons. The suit is misdirected against the defendants herein. In fact, these defendants are improperly/unnecessarily joined to this baseless suit."
5. As can be seen from the aforesaid averments made by the respondents in their written statement, there is clearly a serious dispute regarding location, extent, measurements, identity, boundaries, etc., of the property claimed by both sides. Under these circumstances, in the light of the principles laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench of Court in the case of Sri. Shadaksharappa Vs. Kumari Vijayalaxmi & others - 2023 SCC OnLine KAR 53 and the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rahul S.Shah vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi -(2021) 6 SCC 418, I am of the considered opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, appointment of a Court Commissioner is relevant and necessary for the purpose of adjudication of the issues in controversy between the parties. It is needless to state that since both parties would be entitled to file their respective memos of instructions before the Court Commissioner and also file objections -8- NC: 2026:KHC:5140 WP No. 1245 of 2026 HC-KAR to the Commissioner's Report and examine / cross-examine him, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the respondents- defendants if the application for appointment of Court Commissioner was allowed in favour of the plaintiffs. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court rejecting I.A.No.10 has occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in the present petition.
6. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is hereby allowed
(ii) The impugned order dated 16.12.2025 passed on I.A.No.10 in O.S.No.37/2017 by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Puttur, D.K., is hereby set aside.
(iii) I.A.No.10 filed by the plaintiffs is partly allowed to the extent of appointing a Court Commissioner to conduct local inspection of the plaint schedule property.
(iv) The Trial Court is directed to appoint a Court Commissioner to conduct a local inspection of the plaint schedule property.-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:5140 WP No. 1245 of 2026 HC-KAR
(v) Liberty is reserved in favour of the parties to submit their respective memos of instructions before the Court Commissioner including parties to file objections, if any, to the Commissioner's report and examine / cross- examine, if they so desire.
(vi) Liberty is also reserved in favour of the parties to seek amendment of the their respective pleadings, if they so desire.
(vii) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter including the report and evidence of the Court Commissioner are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.
(viii) The Trial Court is directed to secure the report of the Court Commissioner and dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55