SHRI M NAGARAJ vs SMT HUCHAMMA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60921
WP No. 30710 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010620042024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAAT BENGALURU
ND
DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
WRIT PETITION NO. 30710 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. M.NAGARAJ
S/O LATE SHRI.MARI,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
2. SMT. SARASWATHI.K,
W/O SHRI. M.NAGARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
3. SHRI. N.BHARGAV,
S/O SHRI. M.NAGARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
4. SHRI. N.HARIDHAR,
S/O SHRI. M.NAGARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
THE PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 4 ARE ALL
TH
R/A NO.42, 6 TEMPLE ROAD,
MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU-560003.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PRADEEP.J.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. HUCHAMMA
W/O LATE SHRI. MARI,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
2. SMT. M.SHIVAMMA,
Digitally signed
by JAI JYOTHI J
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60921
WP No. 30710 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010620042024
D/O LATE SHRI.MARI,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
3. SMT. M.DOOLAMMA,
D/O LATE SHRI.MARI,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
4. SMT. M. SAVITHRI,
D/O LATE MARI,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4,
AS STATED BY THEM ALLEGEDLY IN THE
TH
PLAINT ARE R/A 42, 6 TEMPLE ROAD,
MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU 560003.
5. SMT. SHANTHA,
D/O LATE SHRI. MARI,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/A NO.8, ANNAPOORNESHWARI NAGAR,
RD
3 CROSS, NAGASHETTIHALLI,
BENGALURU-560003.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NAGENDRA.T.,ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2, R4 & R5;
SRI. CHETHAN.N., ADVOCATE FOR R3)
*
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TOQUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER AT ANNEXURE-H ON IA NO.13 AND 14 DATED
28.06.2024 IN OS NO.3384/2014 WHICH IS PENDING ON THE
FILE OF THE I ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT
BANGALORE (CCH-2) BY SETTING ASIDE THE SAME BY
ALLOWING THIS WP AND FURTHER TO ALLOW THE IA NO.13
WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-C AND IA NO.14 IS AT ANNEXURE-E
FILED THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT IN OS NO.
3384/2014 WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL.
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BANGALORE (CCH-2).
2
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60921
WP No. 30710 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010620042024
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
ORAL ORDER
1. The present petition seeks to challenge an Order
dated 28.06.2024 passed by the learned I Additional City
Civil & Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (CCH.No.2) in
I.A.Nos.13 and 14 in O.S.No.3384/2014 [hereinafter
referred to as the “Impugned Order”]. By the Impugned
Order, two applications, i.e. I.A.No.13 under Order XVI
Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter
referred to as the “CPC”] read with Section 6 of the
Bankers Book Evidence Act, and I.A.No.14 under Order
XVI Rule 6 of the CPC, filed by the petitioners No.1 and
2/defendant Nos.1 and 2, have been dismissed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners are defendants before the learned Trial
Court. He submits that the suit has been filed by the
respondents/plaintiffs to declare that the gift deed stated
3
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60921
WP No. 30710 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010620042024
to have been executed by the plaintiff and registered in
the Sub Registrar’s Office vide document dated
13.10.2018 and the gift deed executed by the defendant
No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 4 registered in the
Office of Sub-Registrar vide document dated 15.04.2014
in respect of suit schedule property are null and void and
to consequently cancel the same. The plaintiffs have also
prayed to restrain the defendant Nos.1 and 2 from
dispossessing the plaintiffs/respondents from the suit
schedule property.
3. By virtue of these two gift deeds, the suit schedule
property was transferred to the petitioner/defendant No.1
and defendant Nos.2 to 4/wife and children of defendant
No.1.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants
submits that during the pendency of the evidence of the
respondents/plaintiff, he had filed these applications. He
submits that the documents were necessary for the
4
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60921
WP No. 30710 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010620042024
petitioners/defendants to prove the averments made by
the respondents/plaintiff in the suit in as much as in
relation to his health as well as the fact that after retiring
from BHEL where he an employee, the plaintiff had various
medical facilities which were available to him including
health check-ups.Learned counsel submits that however
by the Impugned Order, the learned Trial Court rejected
these applications.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs on the
other hand submits that these applications were filed
belatedly. He further submits that initially, the suit was
filed by the father of the petitioner No.1/defendant No.1
and thereafter after his demise, the suit is being continued
by his mother being respondent No.1. He submits that the
son of the respondent/plaintiff No.1 is the
petitioner/defendant No.1. Learned counsel further
submits that the documents sought to be placed on record
already form part of proceeding before the Family Court.
5
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60921
WP No. 30710 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010620042024
6. An examination of the Impugned Order shows that
the order premises itself on the relationship of the parties
and not so much on the merits of the issue. Although in
the objections filed to the applications it is stated that
similar applications were filed before the Family Court
Judge which was dismissed and these applications are filed
only with an intention to drag the case, it is not set out in
the objections as to what documents were already
produced in the Family Court case or otherwise. The
applications also do not contain any averment as to why
the applications were filed at a belated stage.
7. The learned Trial Court however did not examine
either of these contentions. There is also no finding as to
what documents were filed before the I Additional Family
Court, Bengaluru, which was dismissed on 16.10.2016.
No details are available from the record in this behalf.
8. It is settled law that every application filed must be
examined and findings are requisite in all matters. In this
6
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60921
WP No. 30710 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010620042024
regard, the Supreme Court in Uttar Pradesh State Road
1
Transport Corporation Vs. Jagdish Prasad Gupta has
held as under:
“5. … Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest
consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have
set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order
indicative of an application of its mind, all the more
when its order is amenable to further avenue of
challenge. The absence of reasons has rendered the
[High Court's judgment] not sustainable. …
6. Even in respect of administrative orders, Lord
Denning, M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union
[(1971) 2 QB 175 : (1971) 2 WLR 742 : (1971) 1 All ER
1148 (CA)] observed : (WLR p. 750 G) ‘The giving of
reasons is one of the fundamentals of good
administration.’ In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v.
Crabtree [1974 ICR 120] it was observed:
‘Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of
justice. Reasons are live links between the mind
of the decision-taker to the controversy in
question and the decision or conclusion arrived
at.’
Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The
emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision
reveals the ‘inscrutable face of the sphinx’, it can, by
its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts
to perform their appellate function or exercise the
power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of
the decision. Right to reasons is an indispensable part
of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient
to indicate an application of mind to the matter before
court. Another rationale is that the affected party
can know why the decision has gone against
him. One of the salutary requirements of natural
justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in
other words, a speaking-out. The ‘inscrutable face of a
1
(2009) 12 SCC 609
7
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60921
WP No. 30710 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010620042024
sphinx’ is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or
quasi-judicial performance.” [ Ed. : As observed in
State of Punjab v. Bhag Singh, (2004) 1 SCC 547, pp.
550-51, paras 5-6.]”
[Emphasis Supplied]
9. As stated above, there are no findings given by the
Trial Court. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
Consequently, the Impugned Order is set aside remanding
the matter to the Trial Court to decide the application
afresh. The rights and contentions of both parties are left
open to be adjudicated before the Trial Court.
10. Both parties submit that they will not take any
unnecessary adjournments before the Trial Court. The
parties are bound down by the submissions made by their
counsel before this Court.
11. All pending applications stand closed.
Digitally signed by TARA
VITASTA GANJU
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
(TARA VITASTA GANJU)
JUDGE
KS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49
8