- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12656 WP No. 106962 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 106962 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. CHANDUSAB S/O MAHAMMADSAB SINCE DECEASED BY LR’S SHARIF SAB S/O CHANDU SAB HIREMANI AGE: 29 YEARS OCC.: AGRICULTURE R/O. KOLUR, TQ. AND DIST.: KOPPAL – 583 231. 2. MOHAMMED ALI S/O CHANDU SAB HIREMANI AGE: 24 YEARS OCC.: AGRICULTURE R/O. KOLUR, TQ. AND DIST.: KOPPAL – 583 231. 3. RAJA SAB S/O CHANDU SAB HIREMANI AGE: 25 YEARS OCC.: DRIVER R/O. KOLUR, TQ. AND DIST.: KOPPAL – 583 231. 4. FATIMA W/O KHASIM SAB NITTALI AGE: 32 YEARS OCC.: HOUSE MAKER R/O. BENKINAGAR, TQ. AND DIST.: KOPPAL – 583 231. 5. MARDANSAB Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12656 WP No. 106962 of 2025 S/O MAHAMMAD SAB AGE: 60 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O KOLUR, TQ & DIST: KOPPAL – 583 231 6. HUSSAINSAB S/O MAHAMMADSAB AGE: 57 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O KOLUR, TQ & DIST: KOPPAL – 583 231 7. HASANBI W/O BASHASAB AGE: 58 YEARS OCC: HOUSE MAKER R/O BENKINAGAR KOPPAL TQ & DIST: KOPPAL – 583 231 8. MOULASAB S/O MARDANSAB AGE: 50 YEARS OCC: NIL R/O BHEEMANUR TQ & DIST: KOPPAL – 583 231 9. MABU HUSSAIN S/O MOULASAB MUJAWAR AGE: 28 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O BHEEMANUR TQ & DIST: KOPPAL – 583 231. 10. NAJEERSAB S/O MOULASAB MUJAWAR AGE: 26 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O BHEEMANUR TQ & DIST: KOPPAL – 583 231. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NANDISH PATIL, ADVOCATE AND SRI RAMACHANDRA V BHAT., ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12656 WP No. 106962 of 2025 AND: 1. SMT. RAJABI W/O YAMANURASABAGANJD, AGE. 40 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. WARD NO.4, MASUTI ONI YALBURGA, TQ. YELBURGA, DIST. KOPPAL – 583 231. 2. SMT. SHAMASHAD W/O HONNUR ALUI, AGE: 38 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O 2ND WARD INDIRA NAGARA NAGENAHALLI HOSPET TQ: HOSPET DIST: BALLARY – 583 101. 3. SMT. HUSSAINBI W/O SHEKSHAVALI DEVADI AGE 35 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O BHAHADDURBANDI, TQ & DIST: KOPPAL – 583 231. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SADIQ KANVI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.09.2025 ON I.A.NO.9 AND 10 IN O.S.NO.34/2020 PASSED BY THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, KOPPAL VIDE ANNEXURE- H, AND ALLOW THE I.A.NO.9 AND 10 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12656 WP No. 106962 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. Notice to respondents No.2 and 3 dispensed with in view of the proposed order to be passed. 2. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Issue writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 09.09.2025 on I.A. No.9 & 10 in O.S. No.34/2020 passed by the court of Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Koppal vide Annexure-H and allow the I.A. No.9 & 10 in the interest of justice and equity. b. Pass any other order/relief, that this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the nature and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. 3. A suit in O.S. No.34/2020 had been filed for partition and separate possession. In the said suit, in the written statement filed, the petitioner who were defendants therein had taken up a contention in paragraph 11 of the written statement that the father of the plaintiffs had relinquished his right in favour of the defendants No.1 and 2, by accepting a sum of Rs.2,900/-. Issues having been framed, the parties - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12656 WP No. 106962 of 2025 led evidence, and when the matter was posted for final arguments, arguments of the plaintiffs having been heard, at the stage of arguments of the defendants, an application under order 18 Rule 17 of CPC, came to be filed in IA No.9 for reopening the case for further chief examination of DW1 and grant of permission for further chief examination. The said application having been rejected, the petitioner is before this court, seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. 4. The submission of Sri.Nandish Patil, the Counsel for the Petitioner, is that the document which is proposed to be relied on, namely the relinquishment deed, is required for the purpose of establishing the transaction as a collateral purpose, even though the said document might not have been registered and properly stamped. Insofar as improperly stamped, he submits that he is ready to make payment of the deficit stamp duty and the penalty thereon and as such, the trial court ought to have considered that the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12656 WP No. 106962 of 2025 document being important, the stage reopened and the defendants permitted to mark the said document in evidence. 5. Heard Sri.Nandish Patil, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Perused papers. 6. A Perusal of the relinquishment deed indicates that the same is engrossed on Rs . 5/- stamp paper and is not registered. In terms of the said document, the father of the plaintiff is stated to have relinquished his right over the property described therein in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 by receiving a sum of Rs . 2,900/- and put defendants No.1 and 2 in possession thereof. 7. A relinquishment deed which acts in prasenti where rights are transferred is compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. The non-registration of such a document would make the document inadmissible inasmuch as it is a - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12656 WP No. 106962 of 2025 compulsorily registrable document. Though the document could be impounded and the deficit stamp duty directed to be paid, the fact still remains that the document, as being compulsorily registrable, has not been registered, and as such, there can be no right which can be said to flow from the said document from or under the said document. 8. The suit being one for partition and separate possession, the defence of the petitioners being that there is already a relinquishment deed and therefore, no partition can be claimed in respect to the said property, the purpose of producing relinquishment deed obviously is to establish the transfer of title and possession under the said relinquishment deed which is stated to have happened way back on 4.04.1982. 9. As held supra, it being a compulsory registrable document, non-registration would disentitle the marking of the said document. Such being the case, the question of allowing the petitioners, who are - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12656 WP No. 106962 of 2025 defendants therein, to mark the said document would not arise. 10. Be that as it may, even as regards the stage of the matter, the application for recalling had been filed after the plaintiff having argued the matter and it being posted for defendants’ arguments, once arguments are addressed in the matter, the question of recalling and reopening the stage is not permissible. Hence, for both these reasons, I do not find any merits in the matter. The petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE LN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40