- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11066 WP No. 105105 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 105105 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: KUMARI SNEHA D/O. POPATLAL SHAH, NOW MARRIED & CALLED AS SNEHA W/O. KOUSHAL SANGHAVI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, REPRESENTED BY HER G.P.A. HOLDER, SRI. POPATLAL KHEMACHAND SHAH, AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O.K.C. ROAD, CHIKODI-591201, DIST. BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H. R. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. MOHAMMADSAB GOUSASAB GOUNDI, AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O.H.NO.25, SAYYAD GALLI, CHIKODI-591201, DIST. BELAGAVI. 2. SRI. JAHANGIR GOUSASAB GOUNDI, AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O.H.NO.25, SAYYAD GALLI, CHIKODI-591201, DIST. BELAGAVI. 3. SRI. SALIM GOUSASAB GOUNDI, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11066 WP No. 105105 of 2021 R/O.H.NO.25, SAYYAD GALLI, CHIKODI-591201, DIST. BELAGAVI. 4. SRI. JAVED JAHANGIR GOUNDI, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER & AGRICULTURE, R/O. SAYYAD GALLI, CHIKODI-591201, DIST. BELAGAVI. 5. SRI. MOSHIN JAHANGIR GOUNDI, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER & AGRICULTURE, R/O. SAYYAD GALLI, CHIKODI-591201, DIST. BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAMESH I. ZIRALI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ORDER OR DIRECTION OR WRIT TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS ON MARKING OF DOCUMENT STYLED AS AGREEMENT AND CONSENT LETTER DATED 07-10-2003 PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKODI IN O.S. NO.286/13 DATED 09.03.2020 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY TO ALLOW THE PETITIONER TO EXHIBIT THE SAID DOCUMENT DATED 07-10-2003 AND TO LEAD HER EVIDENCE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 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:11066 WP No. 105105 of 2021 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ of certiorari or order or direction or writ to quash the impugned orders on marking of document styled as agreement and consent letter dated 07-10-2003 passed by the learned II Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Chikodi in OS.No.286/2013 dated 09.03.2020 which is produced at Annexure- A and consequently to allow the petitioner to exhibit the said document dated 07-10-2003 and to lead her evidence in the interest of justice and equity. ii) Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case.” 2. Sri.H.R.Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondents filed a suit for declaration and injunction. In the said suit, the petitioner is the defendant and she produced agreement and consent letter dated 07.10.2003 executed by the defendant’s vendor Sri.Moula Gousasab Goundi wherein he has consented the defendant to draw water from the well. However, the plaintiffs opposed the same and the trial Court under the impugned order declined to mark the document on the ground that the document is compulsorily registerable instrument. It is submitted that the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11066 WP No. 105105 of 2021 agreement in question is produced at Annexure-B. The recital of the agreement clearly indicates that there is consent to draw water from the well and the vendor has already conveyed the immovable property in favour of the defendant and this agreement is only consent to draw the water and cannot be termed as a transfer of right under the agreement. It is further submitted that the trial Court ought to have directed the defendant to pay duty and penalty and thereafter, marked the instrument at least for collateral purpose. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Sri.Ramesh I. Zirali, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 supports the impugned order of the trial Court and submits that the petitioner conveniently suppressed the sale deed alleged to have been executed by Sri.Moula Gousasab Goundi which would have made clear with regard to his right over the well. It is submitted that under the instrument in question, the party has transferred his right in favour of the petitioner for consideration which is required to be registered, as rightly held by the trial Court. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11066 WP No. 105105 of 2021 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the 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 respondents filed OS.No.286/2013 for relief of declaration that they are the absolute owners in possession of the suit schedule property and the sale deeds dated 24.04.2003 and 07.02.2004 in favour of the defendant/petitioner are not binding and consequential relief of injunction. The plaintiffs adduced the evidence. During the course of evidence of the defendant, the defendant produced agreement dated 07.10.2003 and intends to mark the same stating that the agreement is nothing but consent to draw water from the well which exists in the property purchased by the defendant. The trial Court under the impugned order refused to mark the said document. I have meticulously perused the instrument in question dated 07.10.2003 which is executed by one Sri.Moula Gousasab Goundi in favour of the petitioner/defendant. The instrument clearly indicates that the executant has 50% right over the well and he - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11066 WP No. 105105 of 2021 transfers the said right by receiving the consideration of Rs.2,25,000/-. The said instrument though written as consent to draw the water, by reading the entire clause of the said instrument as a whole clearly indicates that the said Sri.Moula Gousasab Goundi transferred his right over the well in favour of the defendant by receiving sale consideration. The trial Court taking note of the same has rightly come to conclusion that the instrument is required to be registered compulsorily and refused to mark the same. It is trite law that if the document which is compulsorily registerable is not registered, it shall not be received as evidence of any transaction affecting the said property. In view of the same, I am of the considered view that the trial Court was fully justified in refusing to mark the instrument in question. Hence, I am of the view that the above writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE ABK /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7