- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32797 WP No. 19753 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 19753 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. PUSHPA S.V., W/O LATE S. SHIVAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/A NO.695/158/107/1, 5TH CROSS, ANNAPOORNESHWARI NAGAR, MALLATHHALLI BANGALORE – 560 091. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SATHISH KUMAR J., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. Y.M DIVYA, W/O KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/A NO.10, 1ST CROSS, 3RD B MAIN ROAD, HEALTH LAYOUT, ANNAPOORNESHWARI NAGAR MALLATHHALLI BANGALORE – 560 091. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. JANARDHANA G., ADVOCATE) - - - THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 07.07.2022 PASSED ON ADMISSIBILITY OF THE DOCUMENT DTD 11.03.2025 (DEED OF DECLARATION) ON THE FILE OF O.S.NO.5312/2014 BY THE LEARNED V ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BANGALORE (CCH-13) (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC., Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32797 WP No. 19753 of 2022 THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, 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 07.07.2022 passed in O.S.No.5312/2014 by the V Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for short, 'the Trial Court'). 2. Sri.Sathish Kumar J., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a suit for declaration and for other reliefs. In the said suit, the petitioner-plaintiff has produced an unregistered deed of declaration which was insufficiently stamped. The said document was impounded by the Trial Court and thereafter, the plaintiff has paid the duty and penalty as ordered. It is submitted that the order of the Trial Court was assailed by the defendant in W.P.No.15456/2021 and this Court upheld the order of the Trial Court. It is further submitted that though the document is an unregistered - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32797 WP No. 19753 of 2022 document, it can be marked and relied on for collateral purpose and not for the main purpose. It is also submitted that the plaintiff’s suit is based on the registered sale deed dated 17.07.1991 executed by one Sri.H.Gangappa through his General Power of Attorney holder-Sri.Kishore Babu in favour of the plaintiff and the deed of declaration which the plaintiff has produced is for collateral purpose to indicate that the brother of the original vendors had knowledge about the sale deed executed by Sri.H.Gangappa in favour of the plaintiff. It is contended that the wife and children of Sri.H.Mallaaih have executed the sale deed in favour of the defendant. To disprove the same, this document is necessary and the admissibility of the said document can be looked into at the time of final hearing. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the following decisions: (a) YELLAPU UMA MAHESWARI AND ANOTHER Vs. BUDDHA JAGADHEESWARARAO AND OTHERS1 (b) SITA RAM BHAMA Vs. RAMVATAR BHAMA2 1 2015 AIR SCW 6184 2 Civil Appeal No.3171/2018 dt. 23.08.18 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32797 WP No. 19753 of 2022 (c) M/s.K.B.SAHA AND SONS PVT. LTD. Vs. M/s. DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANT LTD.3 (d) SMT.GANGAMMA Vas. RANGAIAH AND OTHERS4 Hence he seeks to allow the petition. 3. Though served, there is no representation for the respondent. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 5. The petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.5312/2014 seeking the relief of declaration to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, to declare that the sale deed dated 01.08.2013 executed by Smt.Siddagangamma and others in favour of the defendant, is null and void and for other reliefs. In the said suit, the defendant entered appearance 3 Civil Appeal Nos.5659-5660/2002 dt. 12.05.08 4 W.P.No.15209/2015 dt. 21.10.20 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32797 WP No. 19753 of 2022 and opposed the plaint. The plaintiff has produced an unregistered deficiently stamped deed of declaration dated 11.03.2005. Later, the said instrument was impounded and the plaintiff has made good the stamp duty and penalty. The order impounding the said instrument was assailed by the defendant in W.P.No.15456/2021 and this Court, vide order dated 14.09.2021 upheld the order of the Trial Court. The plaintiff tried to mark the said document i.e. the deed of declaration during the course of evidence which was opposed by the defendant on the ground that the said document is an unregistered instrument and the same cannot be looked into for any purpose. The Trial Court, under the impugned order upheld the objection of the defendant and declined to mark the said document. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the deed of declaration can be relied on for the collateral purpose and not for the main purpose. It is submitted that the relief of declaration of ownership is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32797 WP No. 19753 of 2022 based on the registered sale deed dated 17.07.1991 executed by Sri.H.Gangappa through his GPA holder- Sri.Kishore Babu in favour of the plaintiff and for the said relief, the plaintiff is mainly relying on the said sale deed. However, in order to disprove the sale deed of the defendant, this document is required to be referred to establish the fact that the Sri.H.Mallaiah and his family were very well aware about the execution of the sale deed by Sri.H.Gangappa in favour of the plaintiff. It is to be noticed that the contention of the plaintiff is that Sri.H.Mallaiah and others have executed the deed of declaration dated 11.03.2005 in favour of the plaintiff with regard to the suit schedule property and the wife and children of Sri.H.Mallaiah have executed the sale deed in favour of the defendant vide sale deed dated 01.08.2013. In order to establish the said fact, he intends to place reliance on the deed of declaration for collateral purpose and not for the main purpose, only to establish the title over the site claimed by the plaintiff. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32797 WP No. 19753 of 2022 7. In my considered view, the Trial Court has committed a grave error in refusing to mark the said document even for collateral purpose. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of SRI.PRABHU AND OTHERS Vs. SMT.SHANTA AND OTHERS5 at paragraphs 14 and 15 held as under: “14. A perusal of the above paragraphs in the aforesaid decisions would clearly indicate that, if an unregistered document is brought up for marking during the course of evidence, in the event of the said document not being stamped adequately, or the stamping being improper, the said Court can impound the document and levy penalty. It is only after the penalty is paid upon the impoundment, that the Apex Court as also this Court have held that, the document can be marked in evidence. However, the admissibility thereof is to be decided subsequently. 15. In view of the above, the point framed for determination in this case is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly laid down the law relating to the same. Hence I answer the point raised by holding that, even if a document is not registered, 5 W.P.No.109727/2016 dt. 30.03.20 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32797 WP No. 19753 of 2022 the said document can be marked in evidence, admissibility being left upon for consideration at appropriate stage.” 8. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while considering the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has allowed the marking of the document which was an unregistered instrument and observed that such document can be marked if the instrument is duly stamped and the penalty is paid. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BIPIN SHANTILAL PANCHAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER6 at paragraph 14 has held as under: “14. When so recast, the practice which can be a better substitute is this: Whenever an objection is raised during evidence-taking stage regarding the admissibility of any material or item of oral evidence the trial court can make a note of such objection and mark the objected document tentatively as an exhibit in the case (or record the objected part of the oral evidence) subject to such objections to be decided at the last stage in the final judgment. If the court finds 6 AIR 2001 SC 1158 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32797 WP No. 19753 of 2022 at the final stage that the objection so raised is sustainable the Judge or Magistrate can keep such evidence excluded from consideration. In our view there is no illegality in adopting such a course. (However, we make it clear that if the objection relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a document the court has to decide the objection before proceeding further. For all other objections the procedure suggested above can be followed.)” 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAMRATAN (DEAD) THR LRS. Vs. RAMKALI BAI AND ORS.7 has followed the decision of BIPIN SHANTILAL PANCHAL referred supra and held that even an unregistered document if it is duly stamped can be marked, however, the admissibility can be looked into by the concerned Court at a later stage. 10. Considering the enunciation of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, I am of the considered view that the petition deserves to be allowed. 7 Civil Appeal No.3593/25 dt. 4.3.25 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32797 WP No. 19753 of 2022 11. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 07.07.2022 passed in O.S.No.5312/2014 by the V Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, refusing to mark the deed of declaration, is set aside. (iii) The Trial Court shall mark the said document in the evidence of PW-1. However, the admissibility of the said document shall be considered at the time of disposal of the suit. No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40