- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.21526/2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI TEJRAJ JAIN, S/O SRI SOHANLAL, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, M/S M.P SALES CORPORATION, NO.B/2, 1ST FLOOR, S.P MARKET, A.M.LANE, CHICKPET CROSS, BENGALURU – 560053. 2. SRI SURESH KUMAR, S/O SRI MISRIMALJI, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, M/S MANAS GARMENTS, NO. 757/1, GROUND FLOOR, JHINGADE MARKET, CHICKPET, BENGALURU – 560053. 3. SRI.MANOJ KUMAR, S/O LATE SOHANLAL, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, M/S M.P. SALES CORPORATION, NO.B/2, 1ST FLOOR, S.P MARKET, A.M.LANE, CHICKPET CROSS, BENGALURU – 560053. 4. SRI.NITHIN KUMAR T. JAIN S/O SRI TEJRAJ JAIN, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, 5. SRI KAMALESH KUMAR, S/O SRI TEJRAJ JAIN, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS ® - 2 - SL.NO 4 & 5 ARE RESIDING AT NO.23, MALLIKARJUNA TEMPLE STREET, NETTAKALLAPPA CIRCLE, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU - 560004 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.MANJUNATHA H., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI ASHOK KUMAR, S/O SRI SOHANLAL, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.24/7, 2ND FLOOR, TRUPTI APARTMENTS, JAIN TEMPLE STREET, V.V.PURAM, BENGALURU – 560004. 2. SMT MEENA KUMARI, W/O BHARAT KUMAR SANCHETI, D/O LATE SOHANLAL, NO.12, 4TH FLOOR, ROHINI APARTMENT, RRT ROAD, MULUND (WEST), MUMBAI – 400080 MAHARASHTRA 3. SMT KIRAN JAIN, W/O HASMUKHLAL JAIN, D/O. LATE SOHANLAL, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, NO.204-B, 2ND FLOOR, JAI APARTMENT, NEHRU ROAD, SANTACRUZ (EAST), MUMBAI – 400055 4. SMT USHA DAGA, W/O PARVEEN KUMAR DAGA, D/O LATE SOHANLAL, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, NO.8/5, ‘LEELA’, CHANDRASHEKAR LAYOUT, - 3 - RANGA ROAD ROAD CROSS, BULL TEMPLE ROAD, SHANKARPURAM, BENGALURU – 560004. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.V.B.SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 R2 TO 4 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.11.11.2021 ON APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 26 RULE 10- A READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC, 1908 PASSED BY THE COURT OF XX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCC-32) IN O.S.NO.3260/2013 PRODUCED AS PER ANNX-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION AS PRAYED FOR TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 08.09.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO CAV ORDER This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to quash the order dated 10.12.2018 on I.A No. III filed under section 34 of Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 r/w Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act seeking the impounding of document dated 04.06.1998 passed by XX Additional City - 4 - Civil and Sessions Judge, at Bengaluru in O.S. No. 3260/2013. 2. The Petitioner herein is the plaintiff before the Trial Court and Respondents no.1 to 3 are defendants no. 1 to 3 respectively before the trial court. Respondents 4 to 6 herein are the Defendants 4(a) to (c) respectively before the trial court. Respondents 7 & 8 herein are the defendants no. 5 & 6 respectively before the trial court. 3. The facts of the case are as follows: The Plaintiff filed the O.S.No. 3260/2013 against the defendants for relief of partition and separate possession of his 1/5th share and for determination of mesne profits. Petitioner is the son of 4th respondent herein and 4th Respondent had established a business along with petitioner and the business was Hindu Undivided Joint Family Business and the business was into sale of fabric garments. On filing the suit for partition, Respondent filed a written statement and counter claim and while asserting - 5 - the counter claim averred that there is oral partition and that the petitioner has relinquished his right in respect of the property on alleged consideration of Rs.2,78,842/- and the said relinquishment deed is the subject matter of the written statement supported by counter claim. In the said relinquishment deed, allegedly there is not signed by any person being a registrable document and this being the case petitioner filed an I.A No. III under section 34 of Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 r/w Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act seeking the impounding of document dated 04.06.1998. The Trial Court after hearing both the sides, dismissed the application by an order dated 10.12.2018. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petition has been filed. 4. Heard Counsels for petitioner and Respondents No. 1 to 3, Respondents No.5 and 6 and notices to respondents no. 4(a) to (c) have served. 5. The Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the court below ought to have understood the contents of - 6 - the documents before jumping to the conclusion that whether the document is a document Family Arrangement Deed or a Release Deed or a deed of Relinquishment and a Bare reading of the document in question would indicate that the said document is a document of relinquishment for consideration which is compulsorily registrable document under Section 17 of the Registration Act. 6. It was also contended that the Trial Court ought to have considered that the document requires payment of duty, penalty on the said document. Therefore, the document is misunderstood by the court below to the effect that it is a family arrangement or a deed of relinquishment. 7. It was further contended that the case relied upon the judgment in case of Subaraya M.N vs Vittala M.N and others reported in LAWS (SC) 2016 (7) 13= AIR 2016 SC 3236 which is not applicable. 8. It was also contended that Section 35 of the Transfer of Property Act defines as to what could be a - 7 - relinquishment and Relinquishment is to give up one’s right in the property and therefore the Trial Court has erred in not applying and thus the Trial Court has committed an error in holding that the document does not require registration. 9. It was also contended that the court below ought to have understood as to what a document of release is and the extinguish or a deminition is an event affected by a document itself and if the agreement is in writing, it is hit by section 17 (1)(b) and it extinguishes liability and thus applying the case of Kashinath Bhaskar vs Bhaskar Vishveshwar, reported in AIR 1952 SC 153, the document is a compulsorily registrable document and further by applying the principles reported in AIR 1935 Privy Council Page 21, in the case of Pratap Singh vs Keshavlal, the court brushed aside the reading of documents and misapplied the provisions of Section 17 without there being a right in reference thereto and this being the case, the Trial Court instead of impounding the document, rejected the impounding of documents. - 8 - 10. It can be observed from the order of the trial Court (impugned order) that the Trial Court by emphasizing sections 17 and 49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 came to a conclusion that the documents which will not create new rights or extinguishes existing rights in the immovable property by way of declaration, assignment, do not require registration. 11. It can be further observed from the impugned order that the trial Court on perusal of the document came to a finding that prior to 1998, there was a settlement between the parties, regarding the suit properties and as per that settlement, suit property was handed over to the defendants and before handing over of the possession suit property, both the parties were in possession and after settlement the possession remains with the defendant. Thus there was no creation of any new rights to defendants on the suit property and therefore the provisions of section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 are not applicable to the said document and when the registration of document is not compulsory, the payment - 9 - of stamp duty is also not compulsory as it does not fall within the definition or ambit of definitions of the documents stated in the schedule of Karnataka Stamp Act,1957. 12. The trial Court by relying on Subraya.M.N. vs. Vittala.M.N. and Others reported in ILR 2016 SC 3236 wherein it was held that family arrangements reduced in writing just shows the conduct of parties, and hence their registration not compulsory. 13. The trial Court further by differentiating facts of various cases and facts of the case at hand held that the document dated 04.06.1998 is a memorandum and only saying about voluntarily separation and severe of plaintiff from the family. Ultimately Court by rejecting the argument that the document is not a complete partition and hence registration and stamp duty is not required to be paid dismissed the application. 14. On hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents, on perusal of - 10 - the material placed on record and impugned order of the trial Court, it is observed that the suit is one for simple partition and separate possession of their shares which should be decided in accordance with law and after issues are raised and evidence is led. If they are not entitled for partition, then the suit will be dismissed. If the suit is decreed and the shares are determined, then the preliminary decree will be drawn up and the final decree proceedings they will be called upon to pay the full Court fee. 15. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere and there are no merits in this writ petition. On hearing the submissions of the learned counsels for both the parties, on perusal of the material placed on record and on perusal of the impugned Order dated dated 04.06.1998 passed by XX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, at Bengaluru in O.S.No.3260/2013, it appears that the trial Court has passed well reasoned Order and no need to intervene in the impugned Order. - 11 - 16. Hence, this Court proceeds to pass the following order with directions: ORDER a) This writ petition is hereby dismissed. b) The trial Court is directed to proceed with the suit on merits in accordance with law. c) The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible i.e., within a period of eight months from the date of receipt of this order. Sd/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE GSR/BNV