This writ petition challenged the trial court's rejection of a document styled as a Memorandum of Partition. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding the document was essentially an unregistered partition deed allotting shares, making it compulsorily registrable and inadmissible for collateral purposes.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION No. 12855 OF 2013 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
Sri.Chikkalingaiah, Aged about 73 years, Son of Chamilingegowda, Residing at Marakadadoddi Village, Kothathihobli, Mandya Taluk, Mandya District – PIN-571404.
…PETITIONER
(By Shri. H.S.Vivekananda, Advocate)
AND:
M.Venkatesh, Aged about 48 years, Son of Chikkalingaiah, Residing at Marakadadoddi Village, Kothathihobli, Mandya Taluk, Mandya District – PIN-571 404.
…RESPONDENT
(By Shri. K.L.Sreenivas, Advocate) *****
2
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct to set aside the impugned order dated 19.2.2013 passed in O.S.No.176/2007 by vide Annexure-D by Principal Civil Judge, (Jr.Dn.) at Mandya.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the court made the following:
O R D E R
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The
petitioner is said to be the defendant no.1 in a suit for partition. The petitioner had sought to produce a document styled as a Memorandum of Partition before the court below. On objection raised by the respondent - plaintiff, the petitioner was prevented from marking the document on the footing that it was an unregistered partition deed and could not be marked in evidence. It is this which is sought to be challenged in the present petition.
reading of the said document, seek to contend that it is merely a record of an earlier partition.
3
Therefore, the Trial Court was right in its view that the deed, which was sought to be produced seeks to allot shares in presentee and therefore cannot be treated as a deed of partition itself and hence was compulsorily registerable document and could not be marked in evidence - not even for a collateral purpose. Therefore, the Trial Court was justified in negating the marking of the document.
The petition stands dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
nv
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an unregistered document styled as a Memorandum of Partition could be marked in evidence as a record of an earlier partition.
Sri Chikkalingaiah
M Venkatesh
Anand Byrareddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
