Karnataka High Court
Ondavagalu Veeresh vs K. Sumitra Bai D/O. Late Hanumanth Rao on 27 May, 2013
Author: B.S Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
WP 77228/2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL
W.P.No.77228/2013 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
Ondavagalu Veeresh,
S/o late Ondavgalu Shivamurtheppa,
Age: 45 years,
R/o Kakubal village,
Hosapet Taluk,
Bellary District. ..PETITIONER
(By Sri J.S.Shetty, Adv.)
AND:
1. K.Sumitra Bai,
D/o late Hanumanth Rao,
Age: Major,
R/o Kakubal village,
Hosapet Taluk,
Bellary District.
2. K.Raghunandana Rao,
S/o K.Hanumantha Rao,
Age: Major, Occ: Advocate,
R/o Lingasugur Post,
Raichur District.
3. K.Vijaya Rao,
S/o late K.Vajendra Rao,
Age: Major,
Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o C/o K.Raja Rao,
1
WP 77228/2013
2
Door No.5/1/36,
Near Railway Station,
Raidurg Post,
Anantapur Taluk.
4. K.Sushila Bai,
W/o Krishnamurthachar,
Age: Major,
R/o Tekkalakote Post,
Shiruguppa Taluk,
Bellary District.
5. Smt. Yankamma,
W/o late K.Hanumantharao,
Age: Major,
R/o Kakubal village,
Hospet Taluk,
District: Bellary.
6. Smt. Narasamma,
W/o K.Hanumantarao,
Age: Major,
R/o Kakubal village,
Hosapet Taluk,
District: Bellary.
7. Joshi Sridhara Raghavendra,
S/o Raghavendra Joshi,
Age: Major,
R/o 18th Ward, Devangpet,
Hospet, District: Bellary.
8. Smt. Veenabai,
W/o Lakshminarasimhachar,
Age: Major,
R/o 19th Ward, Devangpet,
Hospet, District: Bellary.
9. Swathi,
D/o Lakshminarasimhachar,
Minor, Represented by their mother
Smt. Veenabai - respondent No.8,
2
WP 77228/2013
3
R/o 19th Ward, Devangpet,
Hospet, District: Bellary.
10. Sri Laxmanachar,
S/o Lakshminarasimhachar,
Minor, Represented by their mother
Smt. Veenabai - respondent No.8,
R/o 19th Ward, Devangpet,
Hospet, District: Bellary.
11. Onduvagulu Rudramma,
W/o late Ondavagalli Shivamurtheppa,
Aged about 65 years,
R/o Kakubal Village,
Hospet Taluk, District: Bellary.
12. Onduvagulu Nagappa,
S/o late Ondavagalli Shivamurtheppa,
Aged about 50 years,
R/o Kakubal Village,
Hospet Taluk, District: Bellary.
13. Onduvagulu Ramesh,
S/o late Ondavagalli Shivamurtheppa,
Aged about 48 years,
R/o Kakubal Village,
Hospet Taluk, District: Bellary.
14. Onduvagulu Dodda Basappa,
W/o late Ondavagalli Shivamurtheppa,
Aged about 45 years,
R/o Kakubal Village,
Hospet Taluk, District: Bellary. ..RESPONDENTS
(By Sri Ravi Hegde, Adv. for
Sri M.Netaji Mohan, Adv. for C/R-1)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated
27.02.2013 passed in O.S.No.5/2000 passed by the Principal
Senior Civil Judge, Hospet, the copy of which has been
produced herewith and marked as Annexure-A.
3
WP 77228/2013
4
This writ petition is coming on for Preliminary Hearing,
this day the Court made the following:-
ORDER
1. Petitioner is the defendant in the Trial Court. During the course of evidence, he wanted to produce the xerox copy of the unregistered partition deed in support of his contention that there was a prior partition in the family of his vendors. The Trial Court has rejected this request holding that the document being a xerox copy of an unregistered document cannot be admitted in evidence. The Trial Court has further found that although an unregistered partition deed can be permitted to be marked in evidence for collateral purpose, even for the said purpose, the document could not be permitted to be marked as it was illegible and was only a xerox copy.
2. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner, to a query of the court as to what is the collateral purpose for which the document is sought to marked, submits that to prove the mutation entry effected pursuant to the partition deed and also the revenue entries made in favour of the respective sharers based on the partition deed, this 4 WP 77228/2013 5 document is sought to relied upon apart from proving possession.
3. The mutation entry has to be proved based on the revenue records and the proceedings of the Tahsildar. The unregistered document cannot be relied upon to establish the mutation resulting in partition of the property. At any rate, the matter does not warrant interference in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution as it will be open to the defendant to take up necessary grounds in support of his contentions while preferring an appeal, in case the judgment in the suit goes against him. Reserving such liberty, this writ petition is dismissed.
4. The observations made above shall not come in the way of the Trial Court while deciding the suit on merits.
Sd/-
JUDGE KK 5