Karnataka High Court
Mallikarjun S/O Shivaraj Karamgi vs Rajkumar And Anr on 7 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1526
WP No. 200485 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO. 200485 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
MALLIKARJUN S/O SHIVARAJ KARAMGI
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
THROUGH HIS GPA HOLDER,
SHIVARAJAPPA S/O SHIVASHARNAPPA KARAMGI
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
R/O DONGERGAON TQ. KAMLAPUR,
DIST. KALABURAGI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANJEEVKUMAR C. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by RAMESH 1. RAJKUMAR S/O RAMANNA JAJI
MATHAPATI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF R/O AMBEDKAR HIGH SCHOOL,
KARNATAKA HUMNABAD, DIST. BIDAR - 585401.
2. SMT. SUREKHA W/O RAJKUMAR JAJI
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
BOTH ARE R/O ASHOK BANJEGAN, C.A.
OPP. BEHIND GADA PETROL BUNK,
NEAR SANJEEVINI HOSPITAL, HUMNABAD,
TQ. HUMNABAD, DIST. BIDAR - 585401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI NAGARAJ PATIL, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1526
WP No. 200485 of 2023
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT, DIRECTION OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI
BY QUASHING ANNEXURE-D ORDER DATED 7.11.2022 PASSED
BY THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE, KALABURAGI IN
O.S.NO.209/2019 AND DIRECT THE TRIAL COURT TO ADMIT
THE SALE DEED IN EVIDENCE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
This petition is filed assailing the order dated
07.11.2022 passed in O.S.No.209/2019 by the I Addl. Civil
Judge, Kalaburagi.
2. Sri.Sanjeev Kumar C.Patil, learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that the suit in O.S.No.209/2019 is
filed seeking injunction against the defendants claiming
that he has been put in possession by his vendor under
the unregistered sale deed dated 13.06.2008, and to
prove his case he has led evidence and during the course
of evidence he has produced the unregistered sale deed
dated 13.06.2008. However, the trial Court declined to
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1526
mark the said document on the ground that the sale deed
dated 13.06.2008 is not admissible in evidence and the
said document is not to be marked as the plaintiff
intending. It is submitted that the trial Court has
committed a grave error in not allowing the plaintiff to
mark the said document, as the plaintiff is not seeking any
relief of declaration in the suit. It is the suit for bare
injunction and he wanted to establish possession based on
the said document and not more than the same. In
support of his contention, he placed reliance on the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Bondar
Singh and Others Vs. Nihal Singh and Others reported
in (2003) 4 SCC 161, and submits that even in the said
case the document was unregistered and unstamped, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the said document
can be marked. Accordingly, he seeks to allow the petition.
3. Per contra, Sri.Nagraj Patil, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents supports the impugned
order of the trial Court and submits that the trial Court
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1526
taking note of the settled position of law has rightly
passed the order declining to mark the document in
question. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition.
4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel
for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents
and meticulously perused the material available on record.
5. The pleadings and material available on record
indicate that the plaintiff has filed suit for injunction
against the defendants claiming that the plaintiff's vendor
i.e., mother of defendant No.2 has put the plaintiff in
possession of the suit schedule property by executing the
un-registered sale deed dated 13.06.2008. The said fact
has been denied by the defendants in the written
statement. The plaintiff intend to mark the un-registered
sale deed dated 13.06.2008 during the course of evidence,
the trial Court taking note of the provisions of Section 17
of Registration Act, 1908 and the law laid down by this
Court in the case of G. Rangaiah Vs. Govindappa and
Others reported in AIR 2008 Kar 151 and K.Manjunath
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1526
Vs. Basavaraj reported in (2011) 5 KLJ 421, held that
the un-registered sale deed dated 13.06.2008 indicate
that there is absolute transfer of right between the parties
for consideration of Rs.21,000/- and is compulsorily
registrable instrument and declined to mark the same. In
my view, the said finding of the trial Court is strictly
inconsonance with the settled position of law. The
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred by the
learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Bondar
Singh referred supra has no application to the facts of the
case. In the said case, the suit was for declaration that the
plaintiff is the owner by way of adverse possession. In the
case on hand, the suit is for bare injunction and the
present document is being marked only for the purpose of
proving the alleged possession over the suit schedule
property which is impermissible in law. Admittedly, the
document in question is unregistered sale deed and when
a document which is compulsorily registrable is not
registered, is not admissible in evidence and therefore, the
present sale deed, which is compulsorily registrable not
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1526
having been registered, cannot be marked as evidence. It
would be useful to refer the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Yellapu Uma Maheswari &
another Vs. Buddha Jagadheeswararao & Others
reported in 2015 AIR SCW 6184, at paragraph 18 has
held as under:
"18. Then the next question that falls for
consideration is whether these can be used for
any collateral purpose. The larger Bench of
Andhra Pradesh High Court in Chinnappa Reddy
Gari Muthyala Reddy Vs. Chinnappa Reddy Gari
Vankat Reddy, AIR 1969 A.P. (242) has held
that the whole process of partition
contemplates three phases i.e. severancy of
status, division of joint property by metes and
bounds and nature of possession of various
shares. In a suit for partition, an unregistered
document can be relied upon for collateral
purpose i.e. severancy of title, nature of
possession of various shares but not for the
primary purpose i.e. division of joint properties
by metes and bounds. An unstamped
instrument is not admissible in evidence even
for collateral purpose, until the same is
impounded.Hence, if the appellants/defendants
want to mark these documents, for collateral
purpose it is open for them to pay the stamp
duty together with penalty and get the
document impounded and the Trial Court is at
liberty to mark Exhibits B-21 and B-22 for
collateral purpose subject to proof and
relevance."
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1526
and in the case of Shyam Narayan Prasad Vs. Krishna
Prasad and Others reported in AIR 2018 SC 3152 at
paragraphs 22 has held as under:
"22. It is clear from the above judgment
that the best evidence of the contents of the
document is the document itself and as
required under Section 91 of the Evidence Act
the document itself has to be produced to
prove its contents. But having regard to
Section 49 of the Registration Act, any
document which is not registered as required
under law, would be inadmissible in evidence
and cannot, therefore, be produced and proved
under Section 91 of the Evidence Act. Since
Exhibit P2 is an unregistered document, it is
inadmissible in evidence and as such it can
neither be proved under Section 91 of the
Evidence Act nor any oral evidence can be
given to prove its contents. Therefore, the High
Court has rightly discarded the exchange deed
at Ex.P2."
6. In the case on hand, the suit if for bare
injunction, the trial Court is right in coming to the
conclusion that the document is inadmissible in evidence
hence cannot be marked. I do not find any error in the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1526
finding recorded by the trial Court calling for interference
in the present petition.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
MSR
CT: PS
