- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1526 WP No. 200485 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 200485 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: MALLIKARJUN S/O SHIVARAJ KARAMGI AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, THROUGH HIS GPA HOLDER, SHIVARAJAPPA S/O SHIVASHARNAPPA KARAMGI AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/O DONGERGAON TQ. KAMLAPUR, DIST. KALABURAGI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SANJEEVKUMAR C. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RAJKUMAR S/O RAMANNA JAJI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER, R/O AMBEDKAR HIGH SCHOOL, HUMNABAD, DIST. BIDAR – 585401. 2. SMT. SUREKHA W/O RAJKUMAR JAJI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, BOTH ARE R/O ASHOK BANJEGAN, C.A. OPP. BEHIND GADA PETROL BUNK, NEAR SANJEEVINI HOSPITAL, HUMNABAD, TQ. HUMNABAD, DIST. BIDAR – 585401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI NAGARAJ PATIL, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1526 WP No. 200485 of 2023 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, DIRECTION OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING ANNEXURE-D ORDER DATED 7.11.2022 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE, KALABURAGI IN O.S.NO.209/2019 AND DIRECT THE TRIAL COURT TO ADMIT THE SALE DEED IN EVIDENCE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This petition is filed assailing the order dated 07.11.2022 passed in O.S.No.209/2019 by the I Addl. Civil Judge, Kalaburagi. 2. Sri.Sanjeev Kumar C.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit in O.S.No.209/2019 is filed seeking injunction against the defendants claiming that he has been put in possession by his vendor under the unregistered sale deed dated 13.06.2008, and to prove his case he has led evidence and during the course of evidence he has produced the unregistered sale deed dated 13.06.2008. However, the trial Court declined to - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1526 WP No. 200485 of 2023 mark the said document on the ground that the sale deed dated 13.06.2008 is not admissible in evidence and the said document is not to be marked as the plaintiff intending. It is submitted that the trial Court has committed a grave error in not allowing the plaintiff to mark the said document, as the plaintiff is not seeking any relief of declaration in the suit. It is the suit for bare injunction and he wanted to establish possession based on the said document and not more than the same. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Bondar Singh and Others Vs. Nihal Singh and Others reported in (2003) 4 SCC 161, and submits that even in the said case the document was unregistered and unstamped, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the said document can be marked. Accordingly, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Sri.Nagraj Patil, learned counsel appearing for the respondents supports the impugned order of the trial Court and submits that the trial Court - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1526 WP No. 200485 of 2023 taking note of the settled position of law has rightly passed the order declining to mark the document in question. Hence, he 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. 5. The pleadings and material available on record indicate that the plaintiff has filed suit for injunction against the defendants claiming that the plaintiff’s vendor i.e., mother of defendant No.2 has put the plaintiff in possession of the suit schedule property by executing the un-registered sale deed dated 13.06.2008. The said fact has been denied by the defendants in the written statement. The plaintiff intend to mark the un-registered sale deed dated 13.06.2008 during the course of evidence, the trial Court taking note of the provisions of Section 17 of Registration Act, 1908 and the law laid down by this Court in the case of G. Rangaiah Vs. Govindappa and Others reported in AIR 2008 Kar 151 and K.Manjunath - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1526 WP No. 200485 of 2023 Vs. Basavaraj reported in (2011) 5 KLJ 421, held that the un-registered sale deed dated 13.06.2008 indicate that there is absolute transfer of right between the parties for consideration of Rs.21,000/- and is compulsorily registrable instrument and declined to mark the same. In my view, the said finding of the trial Court is strictly inconsonance with the settled position of law. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Bondar Singh referred supra has no application to the facts of the case. In the said case, the suit was for declaration that the plaintiff is the owner by way of adverse possession. In the case on hand, the suit is for bare injunction and the present document is being marked only for the purpose of proving the alleged possession over the suit schedule property which is impermissible in law. Admittedly, the document in question is unregistered sale deed and when a document which is compulsorily registrable is not registered, is not admissible in evidence and therefore, the present sale deed, which is compulsorily registrable not - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1526 WP No. 200485 of 2023 having been registered, cannot be marked as evidence. It would be useful to refer the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Yellapu Uma Maheswari & another Vs. Buddha Jagadheeswararao & Others reported in 2015 AIR SCW 6184, at paragraph 18 has held as under: "18. Then the next question that falls for consideration is whether these can be used for any collateral purpose. The larger Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Chinnappa Reddy Gari Muthyala Reddy Vs. Chinnappa Reddy Gari Vankat Reddy, AIR 1969 A.P. (242) has held that the whole process of partition contemplates three phases i.e. severancy of status, division of joint property by metes and bounds and nature of possession of various shares. In a suit for partition, an unregistered document can be relied upon for collateral purpose i.e. severancy of title, nature of possession of various shares but not for the primary purpose i.e. division of joint properties by metes and bounds. An unstamped instrument is not admissible in evidence even for collateral purpose, until the same is impounded.Hence, if the appellants/defendants want to mark these documents, for collateral purpose it is open for them to pay the stamp duty together with penalty and get the document impounded and the Trial Court is at liberty to mark Exhibits B-21 and B-22 for collateral purpose subject to proof and relevance." - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1526 WP No. 200485 of 2023 and in the case of Shyam Narayan Prasad Vs. Krishna Prasad and Others reported in AIR 2018 SC 3152 at paragraphs 22 has held as under: "22. It is clear from the above judgment that the best evidence of the contents of the document is the document itself and as required under Section 91 of the Evidence Act the document itself has to be produced to prove its contents. But having regard to Section 49 of the Registration Act, any document which is not registered as required under law, would be inadmissible in evidence and cannot, therefore, be produced and proved under Section 91 of the Evidence Act. Since Exhibit P2 is an unregistered document, it is inadmissible in evidence and as such it can neither be proved under Section 91 of the Evidence Act nor any oral evidence can be given to prove its contents. Therefore, the High Court has rightly discarded the exchange deed at Ex.P2.” 6. In the case on hand, the suit if for bare injunction, the trial Court is right in coming to the conclusion that the document is inadmissible in evidence hence cannot be marked. I do not find any error in the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1526 WP No. 200485 of 2023 finding recorded by the trial Court calling for interference in the present petition. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE MSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26 CT: PS