- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3680 WP No. 106583 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 106583 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. MARULASIDAYYA S/O. KARABASAYYA HIREMATH, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NEAR MALIYAMMA TEMPLE, BEHIND S.G. COLLEGE, KOPPAL, TQ: AND DIST: KOPPAL-583239. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. KARABASAYYA S/O. GAVISIDDAYYA HIREMATH, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BHAGYANAGAR, KOPPAL, TQ: AND DIST: KOPPAL-583239. 2. SRI. V.UDAYARAJ S/O. V.S.R. LAXMAN, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SHIRAGUPPA, TQ: SHIRAGUPPA, DIST: BELLARI-583621. 3. SRI. KATOORI SRINIVAS S/O. NAGABHUSHAN, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BHAGYANAGAR, KOPPAL, TQ: AND DIST: KOPPAL-583239. 4. SRI. SURESH TATTI S/O. T. DEVENDRAPPA, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BHAGYANAGAR, KOPPAL, TQ: AND DIST: KOPPAL-583239. ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.27 17:00:48 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3680 WP No. 106583 of 2024 5. SMT. RADHA S. TATTI W/O. SURESH TATTI, AGE: 38 YARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. BHAGYANAGAR, KOPPAL, TQ: AND DIST: KOPPAL-583239. …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO R2-R5 DISPENSED WITH V/O. 11.11.2024; NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O. 25.01.2025) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON IA NO.VIII FILED U/S 37 AND 58 OF KARNATAKA STAMP ACT 1957 FILED BY THE DEFENDANT/PETITIONER VIDE ORDER DATED 19.10.2024 IN OS NO.54/2016 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM KOPPAL VIDE ANNEXURE-L IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY; PASS ANY OTHER ORDER AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND PROPER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs; a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order on IA No.VIII filed U/S 37 and 58 of Karnataka Stamp Act 1957 filed by the defendant/petitioner vide order dated 19.10.2024 in OS No.54/2016 passed by the Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge and Cjm Koppal vide Annexure-L in the interest of justice and equity; b) Pass any other order as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3680 WP No. 106583 of 2024 2. Respondent No.1 had filed a suit for declaration of the title and for declaring that certain registered sale deeds and mutation entries are not binding on the plaintiff. In the said suit, the petitioner had once earlier sought to produce a Partition Deed and mark the same in the evidence which came to be rejected vide order dated 03.12.2018, which came to be challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No.108485/2018. This Court vide order dated 09.09.2024, in the said writ petition has come to a conclusion that since the partition was effected under the said document and same requires to be registration as contemplated under Section 17 of the Registration Act. There is no error committed by the trial Court. 3. The submission of the petitioner’s counsel is that he had filed an application in I.A.No.VIII for sending the document to the Deputy Commissioner for - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3680 WP No. 106583 of 2024 determination of the appropriate stamp was directed to be considered by the trial Court. The trial Court after considering the said application, rejected the same vide impugned order dated 19.10.2024. It is challenging the said order, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. The submission of the learned counsel Sri Anand R. Kolli appearing for the petitioner is that the Partition Deed is required to be marked to establish fact of partition and that the Sale Deeds have been executed in furtherance of the Partition Deed, which was required to be permitted by the trial Court to be marked in the evidence by referring to the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for determination of the appropriate stamp duty, as such, he submits that the impugned order is required to be set aside and the impugned order passed on I.A.No.VIII filed by the petitioner is required to be allowed. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3680 WP No. 106583 of 2024 5. The further submission of learned counsel Sri Anand R. Kolli is that there is another Partition Deed, which has been executed between the parties, which is registered and so therefore is also allowed to be stamped and marked in the evidence is not acceptable for the reason that registration on another partition deed cannot enure to the benefit of the petitioner as regards the partition deed which is not registered. 6. Having perused the Partition Deed proposed to be sent to the Deputy Commissioner for determination of the stamp duty and having perused the order of the co-ordinate bench of this Court in the aforementioned writ petition, it is clear that the a partition has been effected under the Partition Deed bringing in force the rigour of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. The said document not having been registered is inadmissible - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3680 WP No. 106583 of 2024 in evidence and the trial Court, as also this Court had rejected the said application. 7. Once the said application had been rejected, the mere forwarding of the said document for determination of the stamp duty would not enure to the benefit of the petitioner inasmuch as even if the document were to be stamped, since the document is unregistered cannot be marked in evidence, as such, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 19.10.2024 passed by the trial Court, as such, the petition is dismissed. 8. Liberty being reserved to the petitioner to establish the partition having been effected by relying on such other and further documents in relation thereto. 9. A perusal of the impugned order, same is not compliance of the Circular No.RJ No.163/2023, dated 24.08.2023 issued by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, the Additional Registrar Judicial is - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3680 WP No. 106583 of 2024 directed to forward a copy of same to the Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Koppal for necessary compliance in future orders. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE CKK CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12