- 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. 2. 3. 4. RAMAPPA S/O KAREPPA JONGANAVAR AGED 64 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTURE, LAXMAN S/O KAREPPA JONGANAVAR AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTURE HANAMANT S/O KAREEPA JONGANAVAR AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE SANJEEV S/O KAREPPA JONGANAVAR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE 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, ® ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.18 11:58:28 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2727 WP No. 100955 of 2025 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK AND AGRICULTURE R/O GOLBHAVI TQ. RABKAVI-BANAHATTI DIST. BAGALKOT-587315 SMT. LAXMIBAI W/O KAREPPA JONGANAVAR AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O MADARAKHANDI TQ. JAMKHANDI DIST. BAGALKOT-587301 SIDALINGAPPA S/O KAREPPA JONGANAVAR AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O MADARAKHANDI TQ. JAMKHANDI DIST. BAGALKOT-587301 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. MAHADEV S/O KAREPPA JONGANAVAR AGED: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O MADARAKHANDI TQ. JAMKHANDI DIST. BAGALKOT-587301 SHRISHAIL S/O KAREPPA JONGANAVAR AGED: 49 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O MADARAKHANDI TQ. JAMKHANDI DIST. BAGALKOT-587301 PRAKASH - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2727 WP No. 100955 of 2025 8. 9. S/O KAREPPA JONGANAVAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O MADARAKHANDI TQ. JAMKHANDI DIST. BAGALKOT-587301 SURAJRAO S/O KAREPPA JONGANAVAR AGED MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O MADARAKHANDI TQ. JAMKHANDI DIST. BAGALKOT-587301 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. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2727 WP No. 100955 of 2025 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 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2727 WP No. 100955 of 2025 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 1 W.P.No.109727/2016 dated 30.03.2022 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2727 WP No. 100955 of 2025 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 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2727 WP No. 100955 of 2025 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 List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16