- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10977 WP No. 104004 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 104004 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: A. V BASAVARAJ S/O. LATE A. V. HANUMANTHAPPA, AGE: 53 YEARS, R/O. ALLIPURA VILLAGE, BALLARI, TQ AND DIST -04. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G. S. HULMANI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. A. V. MALLIKARJUNA S/O. LATE A. V. HANUMANTHAPPA, AGE: 45 YEARS, R/O. ALLIPURA VILLAGE, BALLARI -04. 2. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O. LATE MALLESHAPPA, AGE: 51 YEARS, R/O. ALLIPURA VILLAGE, BALLARI TQ. & DIST-04. 3. ANJINI S/O. LATE THIMMAPPA, AGE: 48 YEARS, R/O. ALLIPURA VILLAGE, BALLARI TQ. & DIST-04. 4. SMT. MALLAMMA W/O. HANUMANTH REDDY, AGE: 38 YEARS, R/O. ALLIPURA VILLAGE, BALLARI TQ. & DIST-04. 5. MAYAMMA D/O. LATE THIMMAPPA, AGE 46 YEARS, R/O. ALLIPURA VILLAGE, BALLARI TQ. & DIST-04. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10977 WP No. 104004 of 2021 6. GOVINDAMMA D/O. LATE THIMMAPPA, AGE 44 YEARS, R/O. ALLIPURA VILLAGE, BALLARI TQ. & DIST-04. 7. BUSAPPA S/O. LATE MALLAIAH, AGE 73 YEARS, R/O. ALLIPURA VILLAGE, BALLARI TQ. & DIST-04. 8. V. GOVINDARAJU S/O. BUSAPPA, AGE: 45 YEARS, R/O. ALLIPURA VILLAGE, BALLARI TQ. & DIST-04. 9. V NAGAMMA W/O. LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGE: 77 YEARS, R/O. ALLIPURA VILLAGE, BALLARI TQ. & DIST-04. 10. B. V. NAGARJUNA REDDY S/O. B. V. SRINIVAS REDDY, AGE: 23 YEARS, R/O. W.NO. 35, SRINAGAR COLONY, NEAR ARUNODAYA HOSPITAL, SIRUGUPPA ROAD, HAVAMABAVI, BALLARI. 11. B. SOUMYA D/O. B. V. SRINIVAS REDDY, AGE: 22 YEARS, R/O. W.NO.38, SRINAGAR COLONY, NEAR ARUNODAYA HOSPITAL, SIRUGUPPA ROAD, HAVAMABAVI, BALLARI-583101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GANAPATI M. BHAT, ADV. R7; NOTICE TO R1 TO R6 AND R8 TO R11 DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THE FILE OF HON’BLE II ADDL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BALLARI IN O.S. NO.296/2016 DTD 25/02/2021 DIRECTING THE DFDNT/RESP NO.7 TO PAY THE DUTY AND PENALTY VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10977 WP No. 104004 of 2021 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: A) issue Writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order on the file of Hon’ble II Addl Senior Civil Judge, Ballari in O.S. No.296/2016 dtd 25/02/2021 directing the Dfdnt/Resp No.7 to pay the duty and penalty vide Annexure-C. B) And also grant such any other writ or order which deems fit to this Hon’ble Court. C) Cost of this petition be awarded, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Sri. Girish S. Hulmani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondents during the course of evidence tendered unregistered relinquishment deed dated 21.03.1989 and as per the relinquishment deed, the possession is handed over. The trial Court has rightly directed the District Registrar to assess the stamp duty payable and the penalty and as per the same, the duty and penalty is paid. However, the District Registrar has not calculated the registration charges. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by remanding matter back - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10977 WP No. 104004 of 2021 to the trial Court to collect the registration charges on the instrument in question. It is further submitted that the instrument speaks with regard to the handing over of the possession and unless the said instrument is registered, it is not admissible in evidence. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Sri.Ganapati M. Bhat, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7 supports the order of the trial Court and 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. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both sides. 5. The petitioner filed O.S.No.296/2016 for relief of partition and separate possession. During the course of evidence, the respondents/defendants produced unregistered relinquishment deed dated 21.03.1989. The petitioner/plaintiff objected to mark the said document and insisted for impounding the same. The trial Court forwarded the said instrument to the District Registrar of Stamps, Bellary for determination of stamp - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10977 WP No. 104004 of 2021 duty payable on the said instrument and based on the said report, the trial Court directed the plaintiff to make good stamp duty and the penalty. The order sheet indicate that the defendants has paid Rs.275/- as a duty and penalty of Rs.2,750/- on the said instrument. The contention of the petitioner that the report of the District Registrar is incorrect as he has not calculated the registration fees and penalty payable under the said document has no merit as the instrument in question is a relinquishment deed dated 21.03.1989, which was objected for marking during the course of evidence and now the defendant has paid the deficit stamp duty and penalty. Hence, there is no impediment in marking the said instrument. It is trite law that mere marking of the instrument does not amount to proving the instrument. It is always open for the plaintiff to raise the objections with regard to the contents of the instrument during the course of argument. The contention of non-payment of the registration fees and penalty thereon has no merit and accordingly, is rejected. 6. For the aforementioned reasons, I do not find any error or perversity in the finding recorded by the trial Court - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10977 WP No. 104004 of 2021 calling for interference in the present petition. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE RKM /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11