Karnataka High Court
Ramappa S/O Kareppa Jonganavar vs Smt Mayawwa W/O Mayappa Karigar on 11 February, 2025
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2727
WP No. 100955 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
®
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 100955 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. RAMAPPA
S/O KAREPPA JONGANAVAR
AGED 64 YEARS
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
2. LAXMAN
S/O KAREPPA JONGANAVAR
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
OCC. AGRICULTURE
3. HANAMANT
S/O KAREEPA JONGANAVAR
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
4. SANJEEV
ASHPAK
KASHIMSA
MALAGALADINNI
S/O KAREPPA JONGANAVAR
Digitally signed by ASHPAK
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
KASHIMSA
MALAGALADINNI
Location: High Court of
OCC: AGRICULTURE
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2025.02.18 11:58:28
+0530
ALL ARE R/O MADARAKHANDI
TQ. JAMKHANDI
DIST. BAGALKOT-587301
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. GIRISH A YADAWAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT MAYAWWA
W/O MAYAPPA KARIGAR
AGED 67 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2727
WP No. 100955 of 2025
OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK AND AGRICULTURE
R/O GOLBHAVI
TQ. RABKAVI-BANAHATTI
DIST. BAGALKOT-587315
2. SMT. LAXMIBAI
W/O KAREPPA JONGANAVAR
AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O MADARAKHANDI
TQ. JAMKHANDI
DIST. BAGALKOT-587301
3. SIDALINGAPPA
S/O KAREPPA JONGANAVAR
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O MADARAKHANDI
TQ. JAMKHANDI
DIST. BAGALKOT-587301
4. SMT. VENKAWWA
W/O CHIDANAND BIRADI
AGED: 61 YEARS
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK AND AGRICULTURE
R/O TOTAD MANE, NAVALAGI,
TQ: RABKAVI-BANAHATTI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587311.
5. MAHADEV
S/O KAREPPA JONGANAVAR
AGED: 52 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O MADARAKHANDI
TQ. JAMKHANDI
DIST. BAGALKOT-587301
6. SHRISHAIL
S/O KAREPPA JONGANAVAR
AGED: 49 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O MADARAKHANDI
TQ. JAMKHANDI
DIST. BAGALKOT-587301
7. PRAKASH
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2727
WP No. 100955 of 2025
S/O KAREPPA JONGANAVAR
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O MADARAKHANDI
TQ. JAMKHANDI
DIST. BAGALKOT-587301
8. SURAJRAO
S/O KAREPPA JONGANAVAR
AGED MAJOR,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O MADARAKHANDI
TQ. JAMKHANDI
DIST. BAGALKOT-587301
9. RATAN
S/O LAXMAN JONGANAVAR
AGED : MAJOR
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O MADARAKHANDI
TQ. JAMKHANDI
DIST. BAGALKOT-587301
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.01.2025
PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, JAMKHANDI,
IN OS NO.60/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-H, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
1. Notice to the respondents is dispensed with in view
of the proposed order to be passed.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2727
2. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
i. Issue a writ to quash the impugned order dated
24.01.2025 passed by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge
and JMFC, Jamkhandi in O.S.No.60/2021 vide
Annexure-H in the interest of justice and equity.
ii. Pass such other orders which this Hon'ble Court
deems fit and necessary under the facts and
circumstances of the case.
3. The petitioners have sought to produce a document
styled as 'Consent Deed of Relinquishment' and mark
the same in evidence to contend that particular land
had been relinquished by defendant No.2 in the said
suit. The trial Court rejected the request by holding
that the relinquishment deed is compulsorily
registerable document and therefore, is inadmissible
in evidence. It is challenging the same, the
petitioners are before this Court.
4. Sri.Girish A.Yadawad, learned counsel for the
petitioners would submit that insofar as any
document when sought to be marked in evidence,
the trial Court ought to permit the marking of the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2727
said document leaving open the admissibility and
veracity as regards the said document. In this
regard, he relies upon the decision in the case of
Sri.Prabhu and others vs. Smt.Shanta and
others1 more particularly para 14 thereof which is
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"A perusal of the above paragraphs in the aforesaid
decisions would clearly indicate that, if an
unregistered document is brought up for marking
during the course of evidence, in the event of the
said document not being stamped adequately, or
the stamping being improper, the said Court can
impound the document and levy penalty. It is only
after the penalty is paid upon the impoundment,
that the Apex Court as also this Court have held
that, the document can be marked in evidence.
However, the admissibility thereof is to be decided
subsequently."
4.1. By relying on the same, he submits that the
said order would equally apply to the present
matter.
5. Having gone through the said judgment in Prabhu's
case, it is seen that it was a case where a document
W.P.No.109727/2016 dated 30.03.2022
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2727
styled as unregistered sale deed was sought to be
marked in evidence for collateral purpose. No rights
were sought to be agitated on the basis of the said
sale deed but the same was only for collateral
purposes and in that background this Court has held
that the said document could have been impounded,
proper stamp along with penalty be levied and the
said document could be taken up for consideration
for collateral purposes.
6. In the present matter, what is sought to be marked
in evidence is relinquishment deed under which the
petitioners' claim that the properties subject matter
of the relinquishment deed has been relinquished
and as such, defendant No.2 has no right in the said
property. The said relinquishment deed being
compulsorily registerable document under Section 17
of the Registration Act, 1908, I am of the considered
opinion that the judgment in Prabhu's case would
not be applicable to the present case. In that view of
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2727
the matter, I do not find any infirmity in the order
passed by the trial Court. The Writ Petition stands
dismissed.
Sd/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
PRS
