- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12703 W.P. No.48607/2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.48607/2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. RANGAPPA S/O TALWAR RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS SINCE DEAD BY LR'S. 1(a) SMT. PADMAKKA W/O LATE ERAPPA D/O LATE RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT. KANIVENAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, PAVAGADA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-561202. 1(b) SMT. LAKSHMIDEVI D/O LATE RANGAPPA W/O GANGADHARA D.A. AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT. NO.217, RAJIV GANDHI NAGARA WARD NO.1, DODDABALLAPURA BENGALURU RURAL DIST-561203. 1(c) SMT. NAGRATHNAMMA D/O LATE RANGAPPA W/O ASHWATHNARAYANA K AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT. HANUMANTHAPURA VILLAGE MEDIGESHI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572107. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12703 W.P. No.48607/2019 1(d) SRI. R. THIMMARAJU S/O LATE RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. 1(e) RANGANAYAKA S/O LATE R. RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS. 1(f) ANJANEYALU S/O LATE R. RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. NO.1(d), (e) AND (f) ARE R/AT. SAME ADDRESS R/AT. CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE RAJAVANTHI POST, PAVAGADA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-561202. …PETITIONERS (BY MS. M.S. LALITHA, ADV., FOR MR. HARISH H.V. ADVS.,) AND: 1. SRI. SRINIVAS C.G. S/O GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. 2. SREEDHARA C.G. S/O GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS. BOTH ARE R/AT. VENKATESHWARA NILAYA HOSAKERE POST MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 132. 3. ASHA C.G. D/O GOVINDAPPA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12703 W.P. No.48607/2019 WIFE OF NAGACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT. THIMMAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE KYATHAGANAKERE POST PAVAGADA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101. 4. SMT. THRIMMAKKA WIFE OF LATE TALWAR THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS. 5. SRI. THIMMAIAH SON OF LATE TALWAR THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS. 6. SRI. NAGARAJU SON OF LATE TALWAR THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. 7. SMT. JYOTHI W/O SUBBANNA D/O ALAVELLAMMA D/O LATE TALWAR THIRAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/OF. HANUMANTHANAHALLI VILLAGE PAVAGADA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101. 8. SMT. CHAITHRA W/O MANJANNA D/O ALAVELLAMMA D/O LATE TALWAR THIRAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS RESIDENT OF MELAVAL MADAKASIRA TALUK ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH. 9. SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O MUDDAPPA D/O LATE TALWAR THIMMAIAH - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12703 W.P. No.48607/2019 10. SRI. GOVINDAPPA S/O LATE TALWAR THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. 11. MARAKKA W/O NARASIMHAPPA D/O LATE TALWAR THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 6 AND 9 TO 11 ARE R/AT. CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI RAJAVANTHI POST, PAVAGADA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101. 12. HANUMAKKA W/O NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS RESIDING AT CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI RAJAVANTHI POST, PAVAGADA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101. 13. THIMMAKKA W/O ANJINAPPA D/O NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RESIDING AT RAJAVANTHI POST PAVAGADA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101. 14. VENKATARAVANAPPA S/O NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDENT OF HOTTABETTA VILLAGE MADAKASIRA TALUK ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH. 15. NAGARAJ S/O NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12703 W.P. No.48607/2019 16. RAMAPPA S/O NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. RESPONDENTS NO.15 AND 16 ARE R/AT CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE RAJAVANTHI POST PAVAGADA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101. 17. GOVINDAPPA S/O TALWAR RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS RESIDING AT VENKATESHWARA NILAYA HOSAKERE POST, MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 132. 18. ASHWATHAPPA S/O SANNAPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS RESIDING AT PAVAGADA TOWN PAVAGADA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101. ERAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S. 19. ERAMMA W/O LATE ERAPPA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS. 20. LAKSHMINARASAMMA W/O CHIKKANNA D/O LATE ERAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. 21. NAGAMMA W/O JAYANNA D/O LATE ERAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12703 W.P. No.48607/2019 RESPONDENTS NO.19 TO 21 ARE R/AT. CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE RAJAVANTHI POST, PAVAGADA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101. 22. NARASAKKA W/O KAREKALLAPPA D/O LATE ERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDING AT K.T. HALLI POST PAVAGADA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101. 23. THIMMAPPA S/O ERAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE RAJAVANTHI POST, PAVAGADA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101. 24. SHANTHAMMA W/O CHANDRAPPA D/O LATE ERAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE RAJAVANTHI POST, PAVAGADA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101. 25. SHAKUNTALA W/O MALLESH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE RAJAVANTHI POST, PAVAGADA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY MR. Md. HAROON, ADV., FOR MR. C.R. ABDUL RASHEED, ADV., FOR R1 - R3 R4 - R25 NOTICE D/W V/O/DTD:22.10.2019) - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12703 W.P. No.48607/2019 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT PAVAGADA IN O.S. NO.310/2012 DATED 29.08.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-A ON APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 29.08.2019 passed in O.S.No.310/2012 by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Pavagada (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court'). 2. Miss M.S.Lalitha, learned counsel appearing for Sri.Harish H.V., learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the original petitioner is the defendant No.15 in a suit filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 3-plaintiffs for partition and separate possession. It is submitted that in the said suit, the defendant No.15 filed an application in I.A.No.8 seeking prayer to re-open the case and permit him to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12703 W.P. No.48607/2019 adduce the documentary evidence i.e. panchayathi palupatti pathra dated 21.10.1997. However, the Trial Court, under the impugned order rejected the said application on the ground that the document is unregistered. It is further submitted that the Trial Court has failed to take note of the fact that under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the document can be received as evidence for a collateral transaction. It is also submitted that the panchayathi palupatti pathra dated 21.10.1997 is a document, which clearly establishes that there was an earlier partition between the family members and hence, the said document is required to be produced before the Trial Court and seeks to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Sri.Md. Haroon, learned counsel appearing for Sri.C.R.Abdul Rasheed, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 supports the impugned order of the Trial Court and submits that the Trial Court, taking note of the prayer sought in the application, by a well - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12703 W.P. No.48607/2019 reasoned order, rejected the application on the ground that the said alleged panchayathi palupatti pathra is an unregistered instrument. He further adds that the plaintiffs were not signatories to the said panchayathi palupatti pathra and therefore, the said instrument would not bind them. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both the sides. 5. It is to be noticed that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed O.S.No.310/2012 for the relief of partition and separate possession wherein the original petitioner was the defendant No.15. In the said suit, the defendant No.15 filed a written statement and denied the reliefs sought in the plaint. During the stage of trial, the defendant No.15 filed an application under Section 151 of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12703 W.P. No.48607/2019 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to re-open the case and permit him to adduce the documentary evidence before the Court. A perusal of the averments made in the affidavit accompanying I.A.No.8 indicates that the defendant No.15 has adduced the evidence as DW-1 and got marked Exs.D1 to D159. However, the defendant No.15 failed to mark the original panchayathi palupatti pathra dated 21.10.1997 which was sought to be produced before the Trial Court by re-opening the case which came to be rejected by the Trial Court under the impugned order. 6. It is not in dispute that the alleged panchayathi palupatti pathra dated 21.10.1997 is an unregistered instrument. Section 49 of the Act clearly mentions the effect of non-registration of a document required to be registered. The said Section clearly bars from marking such an unregistered instrument which is required to be registered under Section 17 of the Act. Therefore, the Trial Court, considering the said aspect, recorded a clear - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12703 W.P. No.48607/2019 finding that the defendant No.15 intended to establish a fact that the partition has already taken place between the parties based on such panchayathi palupatti pathra dated 21.10.1997 and the said purpose is a primary purpose and not a collateral purpose. In my considered view, the Trial Court was fully justified in recording a clear finding refusing to re-open the case by permitting the defendant No.15 to mark the unregistered instrument as evidence. I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned order in this writ petition. 7. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52