Karnataka High Court
Smt.Vinodamma vs Smt. Revannamma on 18 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:26920
W.P. No.214/2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO.214/2020 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. VINODAMMA
W/O LATE RAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT. NARAYANAPURA VILLAGE
SHIVANI HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK
Digitally signed REPRESENTED BY HER SPECIAL
by RUPA V POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
SMT. KAVITHA.
Location: High ...PETITIONER
Court of
karnataka (BY SRI. MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADV.,)
AND:
1. SMT. REVANNAMMA
W/O LATE SHIVARUDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.
2. SRI. SHIVAKUMAR
S/O LATE SHIVARUDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.
3. SRI. UMESHA
S/O LATE SHIVARUDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.
RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 ARE ALL
R/AT NARAYANAPURA VILLAGE
SHIVANI HOBLI
TARIKERE TALUK-577549.
4. SRI. A.M. CHANDRAPPA
S/O HUGGI MAHESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:26920
W.P. No.214/2020
HC-KAR
R/AT. ANUVANAHALLI VILLAGE
SHIVANI HOBLI
TARIKERE TALUK-577549.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G. LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADV., FOR R1 TO R3
R4 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 03.08.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, TARIKERE IN O.S.NO.144/2012 FOUND AT ANNX-H,
ALLOW THIS W.P. WITH COSTS & ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
17.07.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
CAV ORDER
This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:
"Wherefore, it is most respectfully
prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to
issue a writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction quashing
the impugned order dated 03.08.2019 passed
by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Tarikere
in O.S.No.144/2012 found at Annexure-H,
allow this writ petition with costs and grant
such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems
fit to grant in the circumstances of the case."
2. Sri.Madhusudhana Rao, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner submits that respondent No.4
filed a suit for relief of declaration and permanent
injunction against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:26920
W.P. No.214/2020
HC-KAR
petitioner. In the said suit respondent Nos.1 to 3 also filed
a counter-claim that they are the owners in possession of
the suit schedule property and the sale deed executed by
the husband of the petitioner in favour of respondent No.4
is not binding. It is submitted that DW.1 in his evidence
admits the execution of family settlement/panchayat
parikath at Annexure-'G' and also admits his father's
signature. However, the trial Court considering the
objections of the defendants refused to mark the
document at Annexure-'G' on the ground that the said
document is an unregistered partition deed and it cannot
be admitted in the evidence. It is submitted that bare
perusal of the document at Annexure-'G' indicates it is
merely a reproduction of the partition that has already
taken place. It is further submitted that under the
Annexure-'G', an already existing partition is just written
which is not required to be registered. It is also contended
that defendant Nos.1 to 3 have filed a counter-claim
denying the partition already arrived and seeking for
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:26920
W.P. No.214/2020
HC-KAR
declaration that they are the owners of entire property
measuring 2 acre 35 guntas in Sy.No.93 of Anuvanahalli
Village, Shivani Hobli, Tarikere Taluk. Hence, at least for
collateral purpose the document is required to be marked
to prove the severance of status and the possession. In
support of his contentions he placed reliance on the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sita
Ram Bhama v. Ramvatar Bhama1. Hence, he seeks to
allow the petition.
3. Per contra, Sri.G.Lakshmeesh Rao, learned
counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 supports the
impugned order of the trial Court and submits that the
document which the petitioner intends to produce clearly
indicates that on the said date the partition has been
effected between the parties and by virtue of the said
document, right has been created. Hence, it is a
compulsorily registrable document and
non-registration of the said document would attract
1
(2018) 15 SCC 130
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:26920
W.P. No.214/2020
HC-KAR
Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short 'the
Act'). In support of his contentions he placed reliance on
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Roshan Singh and Others v. Zile Singh and Others2
and contends that the document in question is a partition
deed which creates right in favour of the parties on the
said date, which has been rightly appreciated by the trial
Court which does not call for any interference. Hence, he
seeks to dismiss the petition.
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the
respondents and meticulously perused the material
available on record. I have given my anxious consideration
on the submissions advanced on the both sides.
5. The pleading and material on record indicate
that respondent No.4 filed OS.No.144/2012 for relief of
declaration that he is the absolute owner and in lawful
possession of the suit schedule property and relief of
2
AIR 1988 SC 881
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:26920
W.P. No.214/2020
HC-KAR
permanent injunction against respondent Nos.1 to 3 and
the petitioner. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed a counterclaim
as they are the absolute owners of the land in Sy.No.93
measuring 2 acres 35 guntas including karab and further
relief that the sale deed executed by the husband of the
petitioner in favour of respondent No.4/plaintiff is not
binding and consequential relief of permanent injunction.
The case of the petitioner is that there is a partition
between the defendants and 1 acre 18 guntas out of the
total extent referred supra has fallen to the share of the
husband of the petitioner and he sold the same in favour
of the respondent No.4. During the course of recording
evidence, the document at Annexure-'G' was confronted to
the DW.1 and he admits the signature of his father on the
said document. However, on objection of the other
defendants the document was not marked.
6. The document at Annexure-'G' dated
05.03.1981 indicates that the said document is in the
nature of partition. The bare perusal of the document
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:26920
W.P. No.214/2020
HC-KAR
clearly demonstrates that on the said day the parties have
agreed and accordingly divided the property and signed.
Such being the contents of the document, I am of the
considered view that the said document is compulsorily
required to be registered under the provision of the Act.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sita
Ram Bhama referred supra at para 11 held as under:
11. Pertaining to family settlement, a
memorandum of family settlement and its necessity
of registration, the law has been settled by this
Court. It is sufficient to refer to the judgment of this
Court in Kale v. Director of
Consolidation [Kale v. Director of Consolidation,
(1976) 3 SCC 119] . The propositions with regard to
family settlement, its registration were laid down by
this Court in paras 10 and 11: (SCC pp. 126-27)
"10. In other words to put the binding effect and
the essentials of a family settlement in a concretised
form, the matter may be reduced into the form of
the following propositions:
(1) The family settlement must be a bona fide
one so as to resolve family disputes and rival claims
by a fair and equitable division or allotment of
properties between the various members of the
family;
(2) The said settlement must be voluntary and
should not be induced by fraud, coercion or undue
influence;
(3) The family arrangement may be even oral in
which case no registration is necessary;
(4) It is well settled that registration would be
necessary only if the terms of the family
arrangement are reduced into writing. Here also, a
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:26920
W.P. No.214/2020
HC-KAR
distinction should be made between a document
containing the terms and recitals of a family
arrangement made under the document and a mere
memorandum prepared after the family
arrangement had already been made either for the
purpose of the record or for information of the court
for making necessary mutation. In such a case the
memorandum itself does not create or extinguish
any rights in immovable properties and therefore
does not fall within the mischief of Section 17(2) of
the Registration Act and is, therefore, not
compulsorily registrable;
(5) The members who may be parties to the
family arrangement must have some antecedent
title, claim or interest even a possible claim in the
property which is acknowledged by the parties to the
settlement. Even if one of the parties to the
settlement has no title but under the arrangement
the other party relinquishes all its claims or titles in
favour of such a person and acknowledges him to be
the sole owner, then the antecedent title must be
assumed and the family arrangement will be upheld
and the courts will find no difficulty in giving assent
to the same;
(6) Even if bona fide disputes, present or
possible, which may not involve legal claims are
settled by a bona fide family arrangement which is
fair and equitable the family arrangement is final
and binding on the parties to the settlement.
11. The principles indicated above have been
clearly enunciated and adroitly adumbrated in a long
course of decisions of this Court as also those of the
Privy Council and other High Courts, which we shall
discuss presently."
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
placed reliance on clause 4 of the aforementioned extract
of the judgment and contends that the family arrangement
which has already taken place between the defendants has
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:26920
W.P. No.214/2020
HC-KAR
been recorded in the Annexure-'A'. Hence, as per the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the document does
not fall under Section 17 of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the aforesaid decision has clearly held that the
registration would be necessary only if the terms of family
arrangements are reduced into writing and if family
arrangements are already made and if it is written solely
for purpose of record then registration is not required. In
the case on hand the document at Annexure-'G' indicates
that on the said date i.e. 05.03.1981, the partition has
been effected and parties have affixed their signature,
hence, registration of the said document is required.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Roshan Singh referred supra at para 9 held as under:
9. It is well settled that while an instrument of
partition which operates or is intended to operate as
a declared volition constituting or severing
onwership and causes a change of legal relation to
the property divided amongst the parties to it,
requires registration under Section 17(1)(b) of the
Act, a writing which merely recites that there has in
time past been a partition, is not a declaration of
will, but a mere statement of fact, and it does not
require registration. The essence of the matter is
whether the deed is a part of the partition
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:26920
W.P. No.214/2020
HC-KAR
transaction or contains merely an incidental recital
of a previously completed transaction. The use of
the past tense does not necessarily indicate that it is
merely a recital of a past transaction. It is equally
well settled that a mere list of properties allotted at
a partition is not an instrument of partition and does
not require registration. Section 17(1)(b) lays down
that a document for which registration is compulsory
should, by its own force, operate or purport to
operate to create or declare some right in
immovable property. Therefore, a mere recital of
what has already taken place cannot be held to
declare any right and there would be no necessity of
registering such a document. Two propositions must
therefore flow: (1) A partition may be effected
orally; but if it is subsequently reduced into a form
of a document and that document purports by itself
to effect a division and embodies all the terms of
bargain, it will be necessary to register it. If it be not
registered, Section 49 of the Act will prevent its
being admitted in evidence. Secondary evidence of
the factum of partition will not be admissible by
reason of Section 91 of the Evidence Act, 1872. (2)
Partition lists which are mere records of a previously
completed partition between the parties, will be
admitted in evidence even though they are
unregistered, to prove the fact of partition:
see Mulla's Registration Act, 8th Edn., pp. 54-57.
10. Keeping in mind the enunciation of law by the
Hon'ble Apex Court, I am of the considered view that this
is not a case where the partition is already effected and
the same is written later. The document date 05.03.1981
unambiguously makes it clear that the parties has divided
the property and affixed their signature and by virtue of
the said document right has been created. Hence, the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:26920
W.P. No.214/2020
HC-KAR
contrary contention urged by the petitioner has no merit.
The contention that the document is required for collateral
purpose is also required to be rejected as the suit is for
declaration and permanent injunction filed by respondent
No.4 and the counterclaim by respondent Nos.1 to 3 for
the similar relief. The trial Court considering the nature of
the document sought to be produced has rightly come to
conclusion that the document cannot be admitted in the
evidence. I do not find any perversity or error in the
finding recorded by the Trial Court calling for interference
in this petition.
11. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
The writ petition is devoid of merits and
is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
