Hallera Dyamappa vs Tarihalli Karibasappa on 16 April, 2010

[Cites 5, Cited by 5]

Karnataka High Court

Hallera Dyamappa vs Tarihalli Karibasappa on 16 April, 2010

Equivalent citations: 2011 AIR CC 386 (KAR), 2010 (4) AIR KANT HCR 706, AIR 2011 (NOC) (SUPP.) 1234 (KAR.), (2010) 4 KANT LJ 124, (2011) 2 ICC 549

Bench: B.Manohar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2010 1  =

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE B..Ix4.ANoI{AR"  A  4'

WRIT PETITION NO.18552/O9[GiM--'{fPC}.     

BETWEEN

1 HALLERA DYAMAPPA
s/0 NANJAPPA, V - 
AGED ABOUT 49 YRS,   _
MIDDLE SCHOOL TEACHER.
R/O ANAJIGERI VI_LLAGE--  _  '
HARAPANAHALLI .1'ALUFf.. I _.
DAVANAGER§'5,?_DIs;TRIcfI';I  "" "

2 HALLERA NAINJIAEPA  '  '

s/o BHARMAPPA, ;,._  1.

AGED ABOUF-29 YRI5, _ .4
AGRICULTURIS'F-'Q     - .
R/O ANAJIGERI VELLAG.E',,'*--._ _
HARAPANAHALLI I'AL.:UK, 'I  V'
DAVANAGERE IDVISTRICT.  

3 _ HALI,J:lRAE'BRAHNu'¥NANI)A
 '.    _ . . . . ..
 AGED AB'OLT'_I"26 YRS.
V _AC:_RIC ULTUR:-{_S'l" .. _

_/O' ANAJI(_3ERI- _V_ICLLAGE.

HA  TALUK.

DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.  PETITIONERS

" _°9.3_I_( M/S KOLAf{g_& VKOLAR, ADVOCATE}



1 TARHWIALLI KARIBASAPPA

S / O BASAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 69 YRS,

CULTIVATOR

R/O ANAJIGERI VILLAGE,   '
HARAPANAHALLI TALUK, '

DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.    

[BY SR1. VSRINIVAS, ADVOCATE)  '

THIS WRIT PETITION FiL_Iﬁ_3D  QUASH IN so
FAR AS TRIAL COURT   MARK THE
DOCUMENTS AS EXHIBITS _MI«:§I\IfI*Io~N_E_I)" PARA OF
DEPOSITION/CHII+:I«";~'I::}I;§;I/IINI\"1IQII': oI?:Ijw;.i._...§VIDE ANX--E DT.
3.6.2009IN OS NQ."'I3?8V/eI5:';,,., Q "   '

THIS ' BEEN HEARD AND

RESERVED AND' . CoIyIII~j'C{'QI$I--..IIai--oR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDER THIS DAY;efi'HE COURT'  THE FOLLOWING:

Pe.ti$.i_eIAierS'--«._:Va_few" the defendants in the Suit in

"v5IS.N0.138/2Q'05-Epending on the file of the Civil Judge

'  Dixfisidiﬂ Ha;-apanahalli. Being aggrieved by the order

 'le.eIfI;'e'd Civil Judge, dated: 3.6.2009 in not permitting

Ar'



the defendants to mark the unregistered documents during

the evidence of D.W.l defendants filed this Writ Petiti:in;'..

2. The few facts of the case are as folio'Ws«:. A 

The plaintiff filed a suit for declaraition dec-laringll

the plaintiff IS the owner of the   to
grant a decree of permanent  restrairiing the
defendants, their agents   Vfghlstruction and
Interfering with the of the
suit schedule   contended that he
has been in "of the schedule land.
Pursuant to the learned Civil Judge, the
defendants 5 «h_aVelf'ﬁl.e§1'  statement contending that

 ;;1¢ll:i11rettin;g' of father of the plaintiff namely

 Basappa}._there partition on 2540-1941. In the

 partition.V___the'§'suit schedule property was allotted to the

' Nanjlappa who is the father of the first defendant and

 gran"dfatVher--iof defendants 2 and 3. Further, in the year 1977,

W



there was a partition in the defendants' family and schedule

property was allotted to the father of defendants

However, in the year 1999 once again there    

between Baramappa and Nanjappa. f1'hVe"pIainti;f'f'

aware of the said fact of partition  

property by the defendants. Therefore, 
contended that the suit, "'fiied  is not

maintainable.

3. On the   tfiieparties, the learned
Civil Judge   the basis of the said
issues, partiesf'}eTci'~eyide'n.e:e~.ff  the course of evidence of
D.W.1, the jdefenduants'Wﬁtedvsto mark 3 partition deeds of

theﬁyears    to say that there was already

 family the court beiow refused to mark

 said  deeds on the ground that they are

iiunvregistered deeuments and the same cannot be marked in

  éezrideneeié The defendants being aggrieved by the action of

/V



5
the Iearned Civil Judge refusing to mark those three
unregistered documents at the time of evidence of 

the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the.:4pe€;iti.oners 

that the action of the Trial Court inrefpusirig   
documents is unsustainataie   Hﬁisettied
principies. It is further con'tetnde*d' tifiiieigimarking of the
said documents is very that there

was already settienientdoe-'t.Ween ;'thefpar'ties."'VVThe order is not

a speaking in  r:ea:sons"_mhaVve been assigned for
marking of the   Further, the learned
counse} for the petiti._oners relied upon a judgment reported in

ILRr2000"':i----KAR'i 39,55 maths case of CHIKKEGOWDA AND

 E-1I§V§R  GOWDA and another judgment

:'v.rep'orted i1~i__AIEi'1.9i5E§ so 1299 in the case of SIROMANI AND

 v./.s..--:HEMKUl\ziAR AND OTHERS to contend that

 Linregistered partition deed can be looked into for

/9"



6

collateral purposes. The learned counsel also submits that in

the present case also, the petitioners have relied 

unregistered documents only for collateral pu_r;pose's.'.,_i _

action of the learned Civil Judge is contranr'--to:'::claWt:..:  11¢ v 

further submitted that the Trial Court' has.t.rniscons'true:d__«tiled

document produced by the petiti.oners-._as Vpar'titjior;VVVd3eed, 

infact, it is only family" arrangement';"-virizich l_o_ral_ly agreed
between the family    sought for

allowing the vvrit petition.   - if V

5. Per    counsel appearing for
the Respondent  17 of the Registration

Act is nijanclatofylppin. nature. Unless the document is eca11.not"l)em'niaIked as evidence. He further 9' Section 35 of the Karnataka Stamp Act tl_§.vat.ifnAo documents should be admissible in ' '''''eifide':1cepfor purpose unless it is duly stamped. Further of the Karnataka Stamp Act puts a complete A"

embargo or bar against the admissibility of said documents, which are not duly stamped and sought for dismissal. writ petition.

6. I have heard the arguments of appearing for the both the pa:'tiesv'and.V_perti'sed'thievﬁentire' papers.

7. It is not in disp1.1.t§ relied upon three unregistered' there was aiready family _i1'..§;Z"*iv'V4and 1999. Pursuant to the said parties are in possession of the said properttilzs. 'H.eno'e,"the suit filed by the plaintiff is noit.'v'hrnaintainabie."t' ..Howe\}'e'ri,i the paiupatti relied upon by the . defendants Vi"S».TI1QtVfégistefed. Unless the documents are 'vregi;=tered,"~_the_v'same is not admissible in evidence. This ' court. inla judgment reported in ILR 2009 KAR 3182 t4he:e,ase~é"of KUBERAPPA AND OTHERS we '1' C GOPAL /4"

AND OTHERS has clearly held that Section 34 of--__the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 mandates that no shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose unless stamped. ............ .. " All and every transact.i.oris between"two"'. parties do not require registration.at__ - of"

transactions specified under .of'"-thee?-lelgistlration Act require compulsory rnay be transactions between the parties deed which requires compulsory'iregistiiatigonl ~~.$e.ct»ion 17 of the Registration Act which do not require lariluﬂnregistered document require comI;u1$0f3} "under Section 17 of the Registration Act can receiveldslin evidence to prove collateral transactioiis which do not require registration. Say for . exainpiel party, the relationship between the l'v_p'art.ies, the nature: of properties, severance of status among ' 'Inen115ers of tlitrfainily are all transactions between which do ' V -~ not "require registration. "

/3""

8. In View of authoritative pronouncement of this Court, it is clear that unless the three partition V' upon by the defendants are registered iand'-dnljif -'the.'-3 same is inadmissible in evidence. I findno error' or'~il1ega1it_v".

in the order passed by the Iearn:e"d., Civil. it refusing to mark three vunxregistereyd' ﬂdoﬂc'uments""Vin the evidence of D.W.1. Hence, I The petitionxis In the event, defendants 1 to 3 pay duty._aiid notiﬁed, then the partition deeds refen§edd'*to ahove, be admitted in evidence for the limited andVcoi1ate.taJ purposes. safe most:

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court