- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11819 WP No. 148255 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 148255 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: A. KEMPANNA SON AJJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER, RESIDENT OF ARASIKERE VILLAGE, HARAPANAHALLI-TLAUK, BALLARI-DSITRICT-583125. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M. R. HIREMATHAD & SRI. PRAKASH BADIGER, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SMT. P SAROJAMMA WIFE OF P. CHANNABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. 2. P. CHANNABASAPPA SON OF KOTRABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, BOTH THE RESPONDENTS ARE THE RESIDENT OF ARASIKERE VILALGE, HARAPANAHALLI TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583125. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. VINAYA KUPPELUR, ADV. FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 07.08.2020 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT HARAPANAHALLI IN O.S.NO.262 OF 2013 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A BY ALLOWING THE PRAYER OF THE PETITIONER TO MARK THE DOCUMENT AT ANNEXURE-B AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11819 WP No. 148255 of 2020 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: 1) To issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash the order dated 07.08.2020 passed by the civil judge and J.M.F.C., at Harapanahalli in O.S.No.262 of 2013 produced at Annexure-A, by allowing the prayer of the petitioner to mark the document at Annexure-B. 2. Sri.M.R. Hiremath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a suit for relief of declaration and injunction in the said suit. Petitioner during the course of his evidence, produced partition deed dated 23.10.2007, which was opposed by the respondents and the trial Court under the impugned order erroneously upheld the objections and rejected the petitioners prayer to mark the document. It is submitted that the partition deed dated 23.10.2007 clearly indicates that the petitioner is the owner of the suit schedule property and based on the said instrument, a suit is filed. Unless the said document is marked, it would be - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11819 WP No. 148255 of 2020 difficult for the petitioner to prove his case. It is submitted that the trial Court ought to have provided an opportunity to the petitioner to make good the deficit stamp duty and penalty and thereafter, it would have marked the instrument and without providing such an opportunity to pay the duty and penalty, impugned order is passed. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Miss. Vinaya Kuppellur, learned counsel appearing for the respondents supports the impugned order of the trial Court and submits that the petition is liable to be rejected on two grounds. One is the document produced by the petitioner is unregistered partition deed and the same is deficiently stamped. The trial Court taking note of these aspects and relying on settled case laws, rightly rejected the prayer to mark the document, which does not call for any interference. Hence, she seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, 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. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11819 WP No. 148255 of 2020 5. The pleading and material available on record indicate that the petitioner filed O.S.No.262/2013 for a relief of declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit schedule property and relief of permanent injunction against the respondents. In the said suit, the petitioner produced unregistered partition deed dated 23.10.2007 during the course of evidence of PW1 and sought to mark the same. The respondents opposed the same under the impugned order and the trial Court rejected the petitioners prayer. The perusal of the plaint averment indicate that the plaintiff is claiming ownership, possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property based on the unregistered partition deed dated 23.10.2007. The perusal of the covenant of the unregistered partition deed dated 23.10.2007 indicate that there is a division of property among the parties and it has been reduced into writing. The said deed is a partition deed and admittedly unregistered and deficiently stamped. The trial Court taking note of the same, has come to conclusion that the instrument in question is deficiently stamped as well as unregistered and recorded detailed finding and rejected the prayer for marking of the unregistered partition deed dated 23.10.2007 in the evidence. I do not find any error - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11819 WP No. 148255 of 2020 or perversity in the finding recorded by the trial Court calling for interference in the present petition. Accordingly, writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE RKM /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8