- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3287 WP No. 43047 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 43047 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. GULABI W/O KARIYAPPA RAI, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT MUNDURU HOUSE, KOKKADA VILLAGE AND POST, BELTHANGADY TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT-574242. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G.,ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. CHANDRAKALA V SHETTY W/O VISHWANATHA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT KOLYOTTU HOUSE, NELYADI VILALGE AND POST, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT-574229. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ANIKETH K.V., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SACHIN B S.,ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.07.2019 ON I.A.NO.IX IN O.S.NO.78.2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BELTHANGADY D.K CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURES.A AND CONSEQUENTLY I.A NO.IX IN O.S.78.17 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE.F MAY BE ALLOWED; SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.08.2019 ON I.A.NO.X IN O.S.NO.78/2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BELTHANGADY D.K CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE.A AND CONSEQUENTLY I.A NO.X IN O.S.78/17 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE.H MAY BE ALLOWED. Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3287 WP No. 43047 of 2019 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.IX in O.S.No.78/2017 dated 19.07.2019 and I.A.No.X in O.S.No.78/2017 dated 17.08.2019 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Belthangady, D.K., the petitioner/plaintiff is before this Court. 2. The plaintiff has filed the suit seeking Specific Performance of an oral agreement of sale dated 30.09.2015 within a time fixed by the Court. In the suit, the plaintiff had filed I.A.No.IX by praying to reopen the case to lead chief examination from plaintiff's side and I.A.No.X by praying to mark the document No.7 and 8 and list of documents stated in I.A.No.8 in the evidence of plaintiff as exhibits. It is stated that the said documents are not marked in evidence by oversight. The document Nos.7 and 8 are unstamped and unregistered general power of attorney and agreement of sale dated 05.10.2015. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3287 WP No. 43047 of 2019 3. The trial Court by order impugned had dismissed both the applications and observed that the suit is filed for the relief of specific performance of contract and the decision relied on by the learned counsel are relating to some other facts and circumstances and not relating the suit for specific performance and further, the Court had negative the contentions raised on behalf of the plaintiff stating that though an unregistered and unstamped document can be marked and this is not the stage where the Court can take an exception to that. Mere marking of a document cannot amount to proof of such document and at an appropriate stage while considering those applications, the Court can record the objection and thereafter permit the document to be marked. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that the documents are GPA and the agreement of sale where both the parties have signed and he submits that there is an exception for the agreement of sale from registration and it can be tendered in evidence. He submits that as this is an agreement of sale, that too in a suit for specific performance, the Court ought to have allowed the application and permitted the petitioner to mark the documents by reopening the suit for - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3287 WP No. 43047 of 2019 further evidence. At the initial stage itself, the Court has given a finding and has decided about the admissibility of the documents which is not permissible under law. He submits that at any rate, the trial Court ought to have allowed the applications filed by the plaintiff. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ defendant submits that they are not seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale i.e., document No.8 but they are relying on an oral agreement of sale. It is submitted that the exception which the learned counsel for the petitioner is arguing under Section 49 of the Registration Act do not apply to this document and the trial Court had rightly considered all these aspects and rightly dismissed both the applications. 6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance based on an oral agreement dated 30.09.2015. After marking of the documents, the applications are filed to reopen the case to lead evidence and thereafter another application to mark document No.7 and 8 which is unregistered and unstamped draft GPA and draft - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3287 WP No. 43047 of 2019 agreement of sale. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and his reliance on Section 49 of the Registration Act, none of those submissions can withstand the legal scrutiny. In respect of document No.7 and 8, Section 49 of the Registration Act will not apply and the suit agreement is an oral agreement. The contention that the documents are signed by the parties and they are very crucial for the case of the plaintiff as such they have to be marked cannot be appreciated by this Court. The trial Court had rightly held that both the documents are unregistered and unstamped draft GPA and draft agreement of sale and rightly dismissed the applications and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the well considered order passed by the trial Court. Hence, this Court is passing the following order: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. All I.As. in this writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49